Bishop Berkeley pioneered the methodology of the subsuming of experience into its subjective pole. What he stated in succinct terms recurs in many other guises and contexts through the philosophers that followed. For Berkeley the resulting understanding of the nature of experience required God as a cosmic subjective pole that guaranteed the infinite complexity and consistency of the result; a sort of world mind being at the least one of the lower functions of such a God term. What happens to this term in other versions of the same reduction? Does something else play the role, or it is deemed unnecessary? In the strictest sense, if you follow out the logic as far as it will go, turning it in the end upon itself, then the God term is absorbed, disappears. There is something of an idealist 'blob' about this, it overreaches. But if you refrain from going all the way the line you defend can only seem arbitrary. It puts the whole method into question. And indeed the method (in common with every such conceptually 'universal acid') is questionable, it contains an unquestioned assumption about the efficacy of intentional meaning.