But we can invert the "philosophical order" and nothing about our experience changes. "Epistemology is a subset of ethics, which is a subset of politics" - Richard Rorty. Since the Linguistic Turn in analytic philosophy (of which you are curiously silent), we have ignored metaphysics because we realize it doesn't make any difference, i.e. having a "foundation" feels exactly the same as not having a "foundation," so why bother insisting upon one? Epistemology being "circular" is something people complain about when other people don't accept their "foundation," but "circularity" doesn't change our epistemology in practice, so why would we call it a problem?
Intuition-based axiom? Hmm....In general, Axiom is supposed to be self-evidently true, meaning it doesn't require proof, as its logic is evident. Doubtfully it can be applied to intuition, as intuition is accepted as true on an individual basis, which doesn't define the axiom. Perhaps an individual type of axiom if you will?
You seem to equivocate on the word "real." We say something is "real" when we have empirical evidence that it is "material." Our experience of the material motivates us to use the word "real" in other contexts as well, such as calling social constructs "real." But this second use is a metaphor, based on the first use. For you still haven't answered the question: What does it mean to say a social construct is "real" yet not "material?" Which isn't a problem unless its precisely this ambiguity that you are relying on, as you are. Most of your discussion seems to be exactly the Pre-Modern type of speculation that Wilfred Sellars called the "Myth of the Given."
