I have a question to ask of object-oriented philosophers, and I hope that they can clarify a crucial point. If they cannot, then much of their ontology remains a mystery. I suspect that such individuals have an answer, but even if they do, then the exact details are significant unto the entirety of its ontology, and it would be good to explain them.
If the real being of an object is withdrawn, then what does "real" mean in regards to it? And what is this "real being" as contrasted with whatever the term is not signifying? I ask the question from the standpoint of a person not satisfied with answers that repeat and reinscribe withdrawal, because then one merely defers a keystone question of their metaphysics.
My insufficiently tutored suspicions are that "withdrawal" is much less novel than it first appears. Can not many process metaphysicians also point out that what is becoming is processional, then what exist now comes into the light from out of a dark past, out of a dim hallway of its history to which we cannot have immediate access? We could call that "withdrawal." The more I think about it, the less mysterious the concept becomes, until I remember that OOO frequently claims to be a substance metaphysics. Then I wonder whether the confusion is my own, or whether what is discussed is not clear, and I hope to be enlightened on the subject.
I suspect that the answer depends on the specific thinker, and I would welcome responses from any.