It is not the problem that it can not be defined, since we clearly just did that. You know what concept I was talking about.You did it again, you made a statement, then I responded, and then you said that you didn't mean what you said earlier. This isn't very productive, because I don't really know what you're trying to argue, since you keep switching around on me.
but still, I'll continue to play your game, now I'll address your idea of "taking objectivity to its maxim"
So, if the universe exists, and nobody is there to perceive it, then there is no way to define it objectively, because there is nothing outside of it (such as a perception of it, ie. nothing apart or independant of it), is that what you mean by taking something to its maxim?
Then is this a situation where there are no objective relations?
So then you'd say that something doesn't have to be defined for it to be real, because you agree that this universe is real, but yet it has no way to relate with anything seperate from it.
It goes without saying that we humans (beings within this universe) know what we're referring to when we speak of the universe. As I said earlier, there is a level upon which we know what the universe is, and there is a level on which we don't. Since you know what I'm referring to when I say "universe" you know the common definition of it that we use in common language (the objective definition), but you have a subjective definition of much greater depth in your repertoire. So, in this case, since there is a basic definition of the universe, the universe must not be the maxim of objectivity that you speak of. In fact, since you say that the maxim of objectivity can't be defined, then we can't ever put our finger on what it is, so we will never have a word for it.
Just that it was a reasonable conclusion to say that this 'entity' we call 'Universe' is not and can not be objectively related itself, which conclusion we took from it's definition (since it strictly does not have something outside or apart and independent of itself).
On the other hand, we merely think in lines of that a combination of objects, we know that themselves exist, just forms a new object (the composition of those elementary objects it is made of) which we can argue for, must have existence itself.
What I try to explain is that there are reasonable arguments to give for both positions.
I reasoned for one part (the first part) of the conclusion (the universe is not objectively related itself, therefore not objectively existent), but there is of course also another side to it (the universe consists of objects in existence, so it must have existence itself).
So there is not a unique way of looking at this.