From my vantage point I was asking where science ends and philosophy starts when dealing with questions of the absolute, whereas from your vantage point there is no such question to ask - all we have is our reality, and notions of that reality in the absence of our involvement, are artificial in nature. So in that sense your stance allows a clear cut answer to my question and it certainly does remove the need for dividing everything into "in here" and "out there", - everything is everything, in all senses from the microscopic to the macroscopic.

Such a strong holistic viewpoint simplifies many questions but I do find it very unsatisfactory, it seems to place restrictions on questions we can legitimately ask about our involvement (or non involvement) with nature, and even though such questions fall outside of of science they are at least questions that attempt to grapple with and admit to some kind of distinction between our reality and a reality that has no requirement to involve us.