monart

It's true that Objectivism "starts" with the primacy of existence, as contrasted with the primacy of consciousness. Your "conscious experience of determinate objects" presupposes the primacy of existence. If your "experience" is not experience of existence ("determinate objects"), then what is it experience of -- non-existence? If "experience" is not a consciousness, then is it a non-consciousness? Consciousness prior to existence is consciousness of non-existence. But prior to or without existence, there is no consciousness -- what is it conscious of, if not existence?. Consciousness conscious of nothing but itself, without prior consciousness of existence, is consciousness of nothing, is no consciousness.

So Atman is (in) the Self and Brahman is (ultimate) Reality?

In asking the "what would Ayn Rand..." question, I am presuming that she and you were both seeking the truth and each would change one's mind according to facts and logic when presented with them. So if she could grasp your reasoning as valid, she would revise her ideas, or if she could refute your reasoning, you would revise. Those Objectivist philosophers: If it weren't merely the result of coincidental independent work and they didn't credit you, it's a serious injustice that engenders unpleasant resentment. Life is tenacious, especially human life. Before thermodynamics could eventually wipe out humanity, the unending power of reason will find a solution, including maybe discovering laws that supersede (but not contradict) thermodynamics.

"Advaita . . . it's pure metaphysics." But any philosophical metaphysics has epistemological, ethical, and political implications, even if not explicated. If Advaita is "much like poetry", and less like philosophical metaphysics, then, yes, Advaita could be interpreted to suit a given ethics. Yes, "existence" as an axiomatic concept "collects", subsumes, contains, refers to all things that exist, at the same time that it underscores and reiterates the fundamental fact that if they exist, they exist. This repetition is a reminder and a cognitive guardian against the absurdity of denying that existence exists, i.e., that existence does not exist. One of Rand's innovation is her axiomatic conceptualization of reality as: "Existence exists. Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification." Without explicit grasp of these axioms is why "they've been fighting for millennia over what exists".

So, ARI philosophers (and the philosophers associated with TAS/TOC/IOS) know of your work and seem to be (publicly) ignoring your work? Or they too busy? Is that partly because you're not a "regular" scholar and not worth their time? (I'll stop asking these less-relevant questions and give time, instead, to resume studying your "nutrient-dense" monograph.)

Even if that were so -- based on your study of all her relevant works (including the transcripts of her ITOE workshops) -- do you think that, after you demonstrate your reasoning to her and answer her questions of clarification, she would still disagree with the axiomatic status of "we live" you place next to "existence exists"? Hers was an active, honest, and genius mind, and hers was a benevolent, loving, romantic heart.

In my judgement, the philosophy you've developed is worth presenting by you and worth examing by Objectivists. I'm still engaged in contemplating the significance of your "Existence exists, we live". (And, of course, I wonder what Ayn Rand would think about it. Did you attend any events of Ayn Rand's speeches before she died? Have you communicated with any of the philosophers at ARI?)

Thanks for elaborating. From your explanation, I can understand (somewhat) how this perspective may heighten and concentrate one's grasp of the whole (undivided) Self/Consciousness -- as long as I keep in mind that Consciousness is consciousness of Existence, and is not only or primarily consciousness of itself, without existence being there at all.

Thanks. I know a bit more about Advaita. How influential is this philosophy on the people in India? Is India's historical and contemporary cultural-political-economic state a consequence of this philosophy? (Regarding Ayn Rand's concept of "Existence": It doesn't just refer to "the collection of existents". "Existence" is an axiomatic concept referring to the basic fact of all existents: that they exist. Hence, her primary axiom of reality: "Existence exists -- and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists." "Existence" subsumes, not merely "collects", all existents, conceptually integrating them by the very fact that they all exist. So Rand would see and say, in different contexts, both "clay objects" and "clay", and would say that rainbows are metaphysically what they are, independent of how, epistemologically, the range of colors are conceptualized and defined. She would also say that existence precedes consciousness, that, without existence, there would be nothing to be conscious of. And she would also say that some, not all, existents are conscious.)

Existence may be both Resonant and Radiant, thanks to Mother's Love. . . . . . Which reminds of this: At Sunrise (Against the Wall) By Rosa Zagnoni Marinoni They pushed him straight against the wall; The firing squad dropped in a row; And why he stood on tiptoes, Those men shall never know. He wore a smile across his face As he stood primly there, The guns straight aiming at his heart, The sun upon his hair; For he remembered, in a flash, Those days beyond recall, When his proud mother took his height Against the bedroom wall.

According to Advaita Vedanta, does this "Absolute" refer to the one absolute, immutable, objective reality of Existence? Or some other, separate "ultimate reality"? Does it hold that there is mind in all matter, or just in some matter?

I did consider briefly if your "existence exists, we live" is a "yoked pair", each equally at the same axiomatic base, but I took the sequence as indicating an abbreviated movement from the former to the latter, and sought to explicate the intermediate corollaries. I will think more on this.

How does that help your quest for the self's "tie-in" to objective reality? May not there be risks that "consciousness centered inquiries" could lead to a metaphysical subjectivism of primacy of consciousness, and away from the objectivism of primacy of existence?

For more of what sounds to you like a "conspiracy theorist", see the topic Remembering the Pandemic Tyranny: How to Establish a "Pandemic Tyranny

If one is an independent thinker, living in objective reality, one would say, "What are the facts?" If one isn't, then one may say, "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiracist", and not really know what one is saying. "The labelling of (ill-defined) "conspiracist" is frequently used to intimidate, discourage, and dismiss examination of facts that contradict the official, authorized, mainstream narrative. "Conspiracy Theories", as a pejorative label, was first propagated to marginalize those who pointed out counterfacts to the official "lone-gunman" explanation of the JFK assassination. And again employed against the 9/11 "Truthers". So, it's not unexpected, that it's being used against the "covid deniers". But being used here in a forum of independently thinking Objectivists should be just an aberration." (From here.) "How do you define "conspiracist"? You repeatedly resort to using "conspiracist" as if it can wipe away facts; in this case, the fact that no documentation has been found or presented for the isolation, purification, and distinctive identification of SARS-CoV-2 (with properties that causes the deadly and contagious Covid-19). " (From here.)