Onto-taxonomy and the Object of the Subject

www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/71894/1/SM Vol 17 pp. 27-36 Young.pdf

And…still finding support for the proposal:

https://epublications.regis.edu/cftsr/vol3/iss2/3/

The irony that never is resolved in the onto-taxonomy proposal itself, is how the content of the argument against an onto-taxonomy is withheld from its own semantic meaning?

I think this is the basic question Harman never deals with. Apparently, humans have a special ability to “withdraw from view”, just as every object has that same ability, but this ability is also exempted or withheld in the intellectual papers which propose the ideal or proposal. How does meaning itself occur precisely and yet withdraw?

In other words, the meaning of the proposal of OOO, namely, that objects withdraw from view, among the extended proposal, is supposed to not withdraw, but rather is proposed in its presentation to be fully present for the purposes of making its point.

It is this situation to which I refer The Two Routes. It concerns the material of the substance of Object Orientation more than its substance itself.

For,

If indeed Triple-O is sound, that is true, then it answers to the two routes.

If it is merely another philosophical proposal, of idealistic argumentative dimentions, then it fails for what it means.

oh?