Interesting. My position is less in opposition to Theravada orthodoxy and more inclined to use emptiness and artifacts of the mind as vectors, relationships, and/or emergent phenomena that help us better understand what exists, what doesn’t exist, what can be observed, and what can not be observed.
The notion that conditionality or dependence makes something non-existent is useful for investigating the self, perception, and attachments but less useful in deciding whether or not I am apprehending something clearly. The latter can be defined with spiritual artifacts as criterion, but my intent is to convey that even these are layers we apply on top of reality (whatever it is).
Sorry @anon18624217 I am not sure I am following you - what do you mean by “spiritual artifacts”? also I am not sure what you mean by conditionality making “something non-existent”?
As for reality, I find that concept to be wildly anachronistic, and frankly I am not sure what it might mean even now beyond a simple distinction between truth and falsity.
