Level 0: absolutism(?)(word may be changed). Nothing is relative, there is always an objective perspective, and all other perspectives are wrong
Level 1: package-deal relativism. Perspectives are relative to the various religions/worldviews/etc. However, only those that are "properly packaged" are considered valid. For example: Christianity, Islam, (modern western) atheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, Fascism, Nazism, Liberalism, Marxism, Jainism, Shintoism, hellenic polytheism, Satanism, progressivism etc etc. they're all worldviews that have a specific set of beliefs, attitudes and perspectives. In (what I call) package-deal relativism, each of these is considered valid, however it is invalid to create hybrids. For example, Christo-Paganism, or other hybrids are not accepted, unless those are accepted as "valid packages" (interpretations on which packages are valid may differ significantly). However, as a general rule, syncretism, eclecticism, hybrids etc are considered invalid in package-deal relativism.
Level 2: modular relativism. At this level, it is possible to "pick and choose" elements from different religions/worldviews and develop your own worldview. For example, you can fast during the month of Ramadan, celebrate Christmas on December 25th, believe in the Hindu Yugas (cosmological eras) and be a henotheistic Satanist all at the same time. However, in modular relativism, each "module" (i.e. part of a religion/worldview) must remain unaltered. For example, you cannot celebrate Christmas on February 22nd, you cannot modify the rules of Ramadan fasting such as you can drink water during the daytime hours, or that we are in Dvapara Yuga instead of Kali Yuga. Modular relativism allows eclecticism, syncretism, hybrids etc as long as each "module" remains faithful to its original meaning and characteristics.
Level 3: hyper-modular relativism. At this level, it's possible to modify each module as one wishes, allowing full freedom over one's own worldview. Want to celebrate Christmas on February 22nd? Sure, go ahead! Want to drink water (but not eat food) during the day during Ramadan? Sure! Do you think we're currently in Dvapara Yuga, and that the Kali Yuga (the most decadent era) will start in 2100 and will last until 3100? Sure, sure! At this level, there's full of freedom, the possibilities are endless, especially for "crazy" stuff (in a positive/interesting way). Maybe at this level there could be some interesting, useful perspectives that one can use (chaos magick sees beliefs as tools, and this level of relativism is the deepest and most powerful in magickal terms).
There may be different ways to categorize worldviews. One of those ways (a quite common one) is to regard worldviews as strictly defined packages that contain "beliefs" (which I call "modules"). A common approach is to say that a person can only be considered a "follower/adherent" of a certain worldview at a time (discouraging eclecticism and syncretism). What's more, it seems to often be the case that certain modules are associated with a certain "package" (worldview) and it is considered invalid (or perhaps quirky in a bad way) to adopt that module without adopting the entire package. For example, with this approach, it would be considered invalid for someone to fast during the month of Ramadan, if that person is a liberal panentheistic/polytheistic occultist who is very pro-LGBT, pro-polyamory and praises Prometheus, Satan, Sophia, Hedone, Lucifer and Jesus as the main deities of that person's pantheon, and yet decides to fast during the month of Ramadan. This is because fasting during the month of Ramadan is considered (in this approach) as a module that is exclusively found within the package called "Islam" and cannot be found in any other package. Someone who adopts the "package" approach I've described may say to such an eclectic person "bro, wtf is your religion, why...". This approach discourages eclecticism and syncretism, encouraging following well-defined packages instead. "It's all or nothing". An example of this approach that is common on certain corners of social media is to bundle certain (completely unrelated) attitudes together and call them "left-wing" or "right-wing", and then forcing oneself (and expecting other people) to adhere to the entire package. For example, someone who is pro-LGBT may force oneself to oppose gun ownership, to be pro-abortion, to support Ukraine, to support forced vaccinations, to be an atheist (usually, not always), and to adopt a vaguely corporate, rainbow aesthetics (I may create a page about the relationship between worldviews and aesthetics eventually... this is something rarely talked about). Even if someone does not agree with those ideas, they may adopt them because they're included in the package, and some people don't consider eclecticism as a valid option. This is what I call a "package-focused" approach.
But there are other possible approaches! A module-focused approach (as opposed to a package-focused approach) focuses on modules instead of packages. A person is not labelled or judged based on their adherence to packages, but their adherence to modules. This makes eclecticism a much smoother and intuitive experience. Simple labels are generally not used (e.g. "this person is a [insert worldview word -ist]") is less likely with the module-focused approach. One can say "this person is mostly/a bit/fully/not-at-all [insert worldview], but also mostly/a bit/fully/not-at-all [insert different worldview]", but the worldviews are understood as arbitrary packages of modules packaged in a certain way because of historical contigencies. There may be other approaches too, which I may list in the future.