Is there objective Truth?

[Edwardo Piet]

Asking why existence exists is not asking why A=A.

It is analogous to that.

Here's why:

For something to exist is for it to be existent.

So to ask why existence exists is to ask why existence is existent.

That's like asking why atheism is atheistic why colors are colorful, why squares have straight sides and why bachelors are unmarried.

 This is a wrong way of coining the question.

No the problem is with the phrasing of the question. It's logically nonsensical and overly simplistic and vague.

A better question would be "Why did the big bang happen?"

When we say something exists, we mean that it can be found to exist in the context of some framework.

No we mean that it exists. Whether we're talking about whether it can be found to exist or not is a question of whether we're talking about existence in principle or existence as it can be tested by science. Whether we're talking about noumenal or phenomenal existence.

When we simply say that "X exists" whether it can be found to exist in the context of a framework or what that framework is are further questions and are the business of empirical science and hypothesis.

 For example, a desk exists in the framework of things people perceive in time and space.

A desk is something that exists in a framework of things people perceive in time and space, yes. That does NOT mean that when we say "something exists" it has to exist in a framework of things people perceive in time and space.

Sure, that's the only kind of existence that we can test or has any actual meaning to us pragmatically.... but my point is that it would be more helpful if we began with a question that wasn't illogical nonsense like "Why is existence existent?".... sure it's fine if it is clear that what is really meant is "Why did the big bang happen?" or some other more specific and useful question but "Why is existence existent?" is a nonsense question and pseudo-profound.

If you look at the Universe which allows for the existence of the desk, and ask whether it, in turn, is part of some framework which establishes a context for the existence of Universes, then we do not have A=A.

That is not the question I was referring to. You're asking a more helpful question when you're asking about specific frameworks and stuff. If you simply ask "Why is existence existent?" though... then you're stuck on a pointless nonsensical question.

 We have set A1 as a member of set A2.

Again you're elaborating on the question and adding detail to it. If you leave the question at merely "Why is existence existent?" that's a nonsense question like "Why are bachelors unmarried?"

Since when we ask about existence, we are asking about OUR context-- either the existence of mind, or the existence of the Universe which we believe exists, what we REALLY want to know is if there may be said to be another, greater, context.

No, you're talking about particular existences and asking specific things about it in context there... you're not merely asking "Why are the totality of all existent things all existent things?" or "Why is the entirety of all existence itself existent?" those are nonsense questions.

 Just insisting that our own context must be THE ONLY context is a pretty poor response to such a legitimate question.

You're changing the question.