You keep bringing up the classifications "epistemological and ontological " as if they provide some magic division between thoughts. I have no idea what is in your head; I can only go by the definitions and usage I find. To paraphrase my position: epistemology is a branch of philosophy concerned with the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge; ontology is a branch of "metaphysics" that studies the nature of existence. Metaphysics comes from the Greek for "beyond physics", the title Aristotle gave to his writings after his "physics". I hold the position that Aristotle would agree that ontology is governed by epistemology.
>>>However, what we 'feel' as making sense is based on some rather stark feedback from nature - that is, if we fail to connect with the way that the world presents itself.>>some definitions fail us so badly such that we cannot survive while other definitions allow survival?>You seem to be touting some form of antirealism, but such a scheme doesn't explain why some ideas 'work' better than other ideas.>The situation is not *that* severe (at least I don't think it is).>a priori knowledge of the world (not necessarily subconscious).>I say it comes from our evolutionary past and hence we have this knowledge as a result of the world (and not our willy nilly definitions).>Our logical explanations are founded on the same concepts that got us here - that is, the logical processes of nature.>The most consistent manner is one in which we treat reality as 'out there'.>you use those concepts to show that evaluating the meaning of various explanations is not possible>How do explanations become 'better' in your view?