This was a tremendous read, and I hope to get my hands on your book. The Koons and Pickavance definition of “metaphysical systems” was a great articulation, and indeed metaphysics seems concerned with the business of relations. It might have been in Jonathan Rauch where he discusses that no matter how often doctors observed people getting sick, it wasn’t until the theory of germs was created that they could start to get a handle on the situation. Yes, the theory was shaped thanks to observations (without the observations, the idea “something was going on” / “a theory might be needed” would have never come about), but the observations alone weren’t enough (“pure observation,” as I like to call it, is as problematic as the “pure reason” Kant critiqued): a theory was needed. Similarly, we need a metaphysical “lens” to start getting a grasp on the world around us, and though it can be tempting to think of “scientific theories” as no different than “scientific observations” (as “found in” observations versus “brought to and over” observations, even if inspired by observations), this a problematic bait-and-switch that can make it seem like theorizing and metaphysics are unnecessary. This has hindered thinking, I think.

I also really like how you broke down “epistemology,” “ontology,” and “ontic reality” (the last two often seem conflated). Even if Kant did successfully push "ontic reality" across the noumenon, that still doesn’t address the issue of our “ontology” which I feel many people believe is taken out by Kant in the same move. I think some phenomenologists have sensed this wasn’t true, but your articulation makes it clear why this is the case. I also like this careful section:

‘Moreover, and consistent with the ontological interpretation of Plato’s theory of knowledge formulation, the UTOK posits that modern science is specific kind of a justification system that operates via a particular epistemology that yields a particular set of ontological claims about the ontic reality.’

I really liked this, for it quickly clarified that your work is focused on a “unified scientific ontology” (I hope I understood this correctly); ergo, a scientific world-view (I loved that play on words).

“The question, then, is: Is it possible to develop an ontology of psychology that is consistent with existing natural science ontology?”—That’s a strikingly interesting question: thank you for positing it. I see you have engaged in some conversations with Caddell Last on this topic, so I’m looking forward to listening to those soon.

Well done!