This is cool, you produced your own philosophy and are willing to share it.
I agree with everything at the first part of your first section Existence is Infinite. But the first three points under your Additional Notes I would have some challenges to:
“All variance balances as simply being. All difference, all variation, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence.” —Can you explain what this means? I didn’t understand this part.
“Existence is not merely defined as “that which is” because “is” would have to be addressed which would involve perception. The matter implicitly involves perception and interaction; the term “is” only has significance with perception.” —I disagree with this. The term “is” refers simply to existing, to something being the case. It is essentially a tautological concept or a truism. Like you said before and which I agree with, existence simply exists. It is. There is no necessity for anyone to be perceiving it for it to exist. Likewise with “is” there is no reason this need involve any kind of perception of anything. For me the idea of “is” and the idea of “exists” are two different ways of saying the same thing.
“Existence is not needed. Existence is not needed as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to need or require it. Alternatively phrased, there isn’t any thing beyond existence to need existence because every thing is part of existence. Existence is not needed, existence just is.” —I kind of agree with this, but I do think existence must have necessity behind it. It must be logically necessary that existence exists. Because if it were not logically necessary then it would not exist and there would be nothing. I mean, this is a relevant question: Why something and not rather nothing at all? We might say that nothingness is impossible, and that could be the basis for the logical necessity of existence existing.
I look forward to reading more about your philosophy on your website 