An excellent post here:
The best part (for me):
"If the analogy holds, attachment to objects in ontology are somehow like the attachment to concepts concerning thought content. The issue is whether there is more to the world than ready-made objects, more to content than ready-made concepts."
Yes, and that lays the ground for why I am critical of OOO. It wants its fundamental ontological unit, the object as substance, ready-made. I think that's wrong. It's that simple.