Here, and elsewhere, I have tried to reify the concept of a first person point of view, introducing the P-world, or phenomenal world, which is all that properly belongs to the first person, and the R-world, which is noumenal, eternal, unknowable. I did so, not to argue that these were terrifically real or accurate descriptions of things. They weren’t, and aren’t. Instead, they collectively constitute an interesting and useful stance to take with respect to a great many issues that can not have simple answers. Many grand themes in metaphysics, religion, and even mundane matters such as memetics and mental health, may fruitfully be discussed as if these were real things. They are, however, concepts. They are thus no more real than teapots or apples. Useful. Indeed we need to assume their reality for some levels of discourse. But not possessed of any intrinsic essence; not ultimately real. They are reifications of that which cannot be reified. There can be no such things.
With that, my entire philosophical inquiry changes direction slightly. I don’t believe I ever strove for accuracy, or verisimilitude. But I might have tried to be right. Now, I see it is rather an exercise in dialectics. This is not the (or ‘a’) right way to think. This may be a useful way to think, just as doing biceps curls is a useful kind of exercise.