Over-analyzing RC

I noted in class that I think we may be over-analyzing the Radical Constructivist positon by entertaining ontological notions about tangible, sensible objects such as apples, skies, spears, etc. in an attempt to understand RC. I suggested that we entertain such situations as pedagogical scenarios in an attempt to find some practical use and understanding of RC philosophy. For example, if Professor Johnson has a lesson plan for the class, it is of no concern whether he actually has one or what it is, to the RC, but that each subjective agent experiencing the lesson constructs knowledge claims throughout and about the lesson in a way that is viable for that subjective agent.

Also, whether an experience is direct, or indirect, such as in the situation of experiencing memory, what does it matter, as long as the experience or construct/claim is viable with one's experience?

Are some indirect experiences more viable than others? (assuming there are different kinds of indirect experience, remembering, meditating, etc.)