I'm currently writing a thesis that I'd like to receive criticism on. Hopefully, I can return the favor in kind with some work of yours.
To give a brief synopsis, I seek to place anti-realist explanations of human existence on a non-transcendental, non-relativistic (you can substitute non-solipsistic) ground, that is freely and openly chosen as an ethical choice in how we decide between competing explanations. I use parsimony (the idea that the best explanation is the one with the fewest hypotheses) to argue that anti-realist explanations ought to be preferred over those that presume that humans have an epistemological connection to nature such that they can know nature or perceive an intelligible order in nature. Then I systematically explicate the necessary consequences for how one interprets human existence if one does not assume this epistemological connection.
Please contact me by email if interested: grm5 @ pitt . edu