>>>"Bring Our Discussion To The Top"
I've got the common sense of a brick, so it's lucky I found it!
>>>"Ontology is simply a discussion of 'what is'."
Well, though I felt I may have been somewhat murky about this concept, I didn't think I was that far off. Naturally, your characterization here has made me snoop around the internet for a bit, just to see what I could find...
Some sites directly equate ontology to metaphysics, which seems to be an oversimplified definition for my tastes. Other sites lend a much more thorough understanding of the term: ontology is the branch of metaphysics that accepts the underlying question of metaphysics: "does an external reality exist independent of our consciousness of it?" That is, ontology is a considration based on an affirmative answer to this question.
Obviously, if an ontologist doesn't step back and examine this assumption, he will consider statements like "ontology is simply a discussion of 'what is'" to be a fair starting point.
This is much like the stopping point we'd come to in our discussions of agnosticism. You demanding I state my creed; I explaining agnosticism is NOT a creed (since a creed rejecting all creeds would be a paradox).
>>>"The consequence of accepting the existence of 'meaning' is, from what I can tell, an admission of some form of theism (i.e., meaning requires some form of Sentience which you said so yourself)."
It is this basis I'm trying to examine. However, it seems to me we'll never get beyond where we are right now.