"You think a single consciousness is at the bottom of everything. That’s a principle, if not a substance."

And you say that I play semantic games. Lol. Consciousness is not a “thing.” Hence neither a substance nor a principle or any other phenomenon. It's not that it is one, it is without other. You simply cannot define it in positive terms (i.e. you cannot name it). That's a huge difference. I'm not an idealist, mind you.

"I could assert the very same thing about mine: my philosophy encompasses yours since I could derive the subjective impression of oneness from naturalism, pantheism, pragmatism, etc."

Sure, and you will be left with “hard problem of consciousness”, Cartesian body-mind duality with cop-outs such as qualia, and similar paradoxes or outright BS such as Dennett's “consciousness is an illusion”. Been there, done that. And while I'm at illusions –

"There’s no real absurdity but only the illusion of it, according to you. But that very emphasis on something as “real,” and the de-emphasis on something else as “illusion” testify to your worldview"

No, I say that you see absurdity where it is none. The absurdity you see is solely of human making. Furthermore, that something is an “illusion” does not mean that it is not “real”. And if stating facts amounts in your book to having a worldview, then yes, I have a worldview.

"You think your worldview swallows up all others in totalitarian fashion, which licenses these harassments."

So, stating that you are plainly wrong in some aspects because of your limited perspective is harassment. Note taken. You should say straight and openly that I should either agree with you or leave you alone. I guess you are deaf to anything that does not concur with your gobbledygook. Sigh. But also as per usual – whatever. Eventually you will get it. There's your “live and let live” my way.