A defining feature of my ‘world-for-us’ epistemology

It is evident for us that the world as experienced and thought by us may be different from the world as it is in itself. That is to say, the-world-for-us may differ from the-world-in-itself. But the-world-for-us may also coincide with the-world-in-itself. We do not know, and we will never know. What's decisively justified for us though is that we can make a logical or conceptual distinction between the-world-for-us and the-world-in-itself. This distinction is valid for us in any case, even if the 'for us' actually coincides with the 'in itself'. We will never be able though to justify this distincion as a distinction within the world-in-itself. It's only a justified distinction within the-world-for-us. Now, a defining feature of my ‘world-for-us’ epistemology is that we cannot claim anything about the relation between the-world-for-us and the-world-in-itself. This relationship lacks any content since conceptualizing it would entail claims about the ‘in itself’ of the-world-for-us, and thus knowledge of the-world-in-itself, which is impossible on my theory of knowledge. Each attempt to ontologize the relation between the 'for us' and the 'in-itself' must therefore be prevented. This relation has to be wholly de-ontologized.