I agree our first-person perspective should be part of our description of reality, although some philosophical naturalists think we should explain away the first-person viewpoint. Indeed, I believe some Hindu schools of thought likewise treat conventional states of consciousness as illusory. Buddhists also think the ego is illusory (or less real than a selfless way of perceiving the world). So there we’d have dualism, a distinction between deep and superficial reality. Kant does something similar with noumena and phenomena.
Horror writers/thinkers like Lovecraft and Thacker capitalize on that time-honoured way of integrating subjective and objective knowledge, by pointing out that we end up being alienated from the objective world, which can be scary, to say the least.
When you say the world-without-us (the objective world) shouldn’t be metaphysically privileged, are you assuming monism? I believe Hinduism includes both monistic and dualistic interpretations, just as Western philosophy does. For example, Schopenhauer and Spinoza were monists. But even monists typically say there’s God’s viewpoint or the deepest level of consciousness and then there’s the profane, conventional, egoistic viewpoint which ends up being integrated with ultimate reality but precisely by being regarded as less real, as comparatively illusory.
At the very least, the subjective perspective can mislead us in many ways, such as by being a source of hubris, which Buddhists want to correct for.
Anyway, let me know if you end up writing some more related articles.