The extent to which information is tied to a local context determines the extent to which the information is universally true. You can't and you don't see the same thing from a worm's point of view as you can and do from a person's perspective, or a bird's, a dog's or a god's point of view. Which perspective is absolutely correct? None. Which is absolutely incorrect? None.
Examples follow. Kilimanjaro is the highest mountain... in Tanzania. For people without telescopes, the Earth is at the center of the cosmos. Food that humans call rotten or spoiled is a banquet for bacteria. Weeds are plants that humans don't like and/or can't use. One person's "terrorist" is another person's "freedom fighter". The lemma is continuous and discreet. As realtors put it: location, location, location! Or in other words: context, context, context!
Context-free thinking, context-free language, and language-free conversation are prerequisites to universal understanding and universal communication. The higher you stand the further you can see. The higher you think, the more contexts/perspectives you understand. The higher the level of abstraction (meta) the more can be seen of the nature of reality.
What we think we know of reality, is only ever an approximation. It is stochastic, uncertain, and frothy and foamy. Waves, yes, but particles too. Bohr's complementarity principle is a tool for resolving apparent differences, for reconciling the apparently irreconcilable. Things that may seem to be contradictory are usually if not always merely different aspects in different contexts of the same fundamental truth. With one exception, nothing is true for all time in all places in every way. Every thing is only ever sometimes true, in some places, in some ways. There is only one thing that is always true: Everything (as a monadic whole). In other words, only God is always right.
By definition, Reality is that which encompasses all contexts, everywhere, at all times. The less that a truth is context-dependent, the more accurately it reflects reality and the more of reality it reflects.
What types of context are there? The types are too numerous to list, but here are some examples: contexts of person, of culture, of mind, of identity, of family, of school, of work, of paradigm, of shared belief, of species-hood, of genus-hood, of domain-hood, and many more.
How can I understand Everything within the narrow context of my finite mind? Obviously I can't. How can I understand Everything or every thing within the constrained context of a wholly materialistic culture? Obviously I can't. How can I embrace the All with arms that are not as wide as the All? Obviously, I can't. But if my arms were longer, I could.
So if you want to get closer to understanding the meaning and purpose of life and the true nature of reality, the challenge is to rigorously strip, scrub, abrade, scrape, remove all contexts from cogitation and elucidation, so that the biggest, purest meaning can emerge.
* This thought is expressed somewhere in Daniel Dennett's monumental book, "Consciousness explained".