You're hurting me.
I'm not going to define these words, as that is simply
a sucker's bet. Rather, I will give the foundation, which
is that all we really can know is our perceptions (and
yes, these too must remain undefined to one who
will argue that there is no proof of his own existence).
Now, while there may or may not be some underlying
reality, speculating about such a thing is purely pointless,
and can merely be seen as a model for explaining these
perceptions. Making the assumption (on top of one's own
existence) that others have SOME existence as well (ah,
a tremendous jump here - with NO foundation), and that
their perceptions have some reality as well, yet differ from
one's own, the point is clear.
Still, the assumptions upon which the argument lies seem
obscene - so perhaps it would be better to say simply,
"I am the objective truth." Seems more honest, at least.