Definitely poignant. Many would need to read more of your work to truly see the salience of TOK's contributions, but you addressed that with various links to other articles. Ontology has become an increasingly complex notion for me. I am quite content to take the nondual route of undercutting (not bypassing) knowing the unknown through beingness and all that nondual peak experience stuff that we'll likely never be able to accurately put to words. But in playing around with the concept like you have, coining the term ontic itself as being an ontological category since we can't put actually reality into a concept. 

I bring this up because at the end of your article you state that TOK effectively corresponds the ontic with the ontological, which to me seems at least on the surface to be contradictory. I agree that TOK has clarified epistemological frames to the extent that we can actually delineate a thing from how we know it and even apply different epistemologies to the same ontic (or perhaps the reverse would be more accurate). But if the ontic is an ontogical category how can it correspond with ontology? Or rather how can we know that they correspond? In terms of the development of the joint points (the nonlinear aspect being another wrench maybe), we can say that the ontic has flourished, but I am of the impression that we cannot know that we have anything to do with it or that our ontogies are accurate at all. 

For example, if we're using the map and the territory to represent ontology and the ontic, we can say that our map is accurate because we've been following it and we haven't steered off the path(s). But how do we know that on the level of the ontic that we aren't just aimlessly wandering around empty space? If "we" are even "there," which naturalistic science is fairly adamant on that we're not. And if we're being really critical about it, does it even matter if its accurate or not so long as we think it is and reality continues to flourish? I hope it is obvious I mean none of this pejoratively, not at all.