I think you'd enjoy the work of Bernardo Kastrup, who is a proponent of idealism, while also arguing against panpsychism, for basically the reasons you just stated - ie, there is a reality made of parts, and those parts are x, where x is 'matter', 'mind', 'consciousness', 'electromagnetism' and so on. But the trouble then is that you can only describe the constituent parts in terms of those parts. For example, subatomic particles have properties like spin and charge, but that's the only way you can describe them - in relation to one another - without having to go a level 'deeper' if it were possible to describe them in further parts (which would only be describable in terms of those parts, and so on).

my question to you: do you consider yourself to be mysterious or just mundane? what is your experience of your own Being-ness?

> Do you consider yourself to be mysterious or just mundane?

Mundane, that is even more amazing.

> What is your experience of your own Being-ness?

My electrons and nuclei are arranged in a weird pattern. If you ask them if I'm conscious, they can move another electrons and nuclei to type "yes". If you ask them if I'm lying, they can move another electrons and nuclei to type "no". It's just a strange pattern that simulates a delusion, don't trust them.

> Mundane, that is even more amazing.

What's amazing about the mundane?

A good question, something I'll have to think about.

The immediate if indirect answer I can give you: I stopped feeling this sense of wonder, mystery, greater purpose of reality, somewhen during my university years. I only ever experience these feelings when consuming works of fiction.

C.S. Lewis described something similar with fiction ‘baptizing the imagination in longing’

https://andrewmarrosb.blog/articles/baptizing-the-imaginatio...