A anonymous poster said that "functionality would fully temporalize it" ["hiding out" in reference to whether nature "hides" itself]. The assertion, as I understood it, was that functionalizing the concept would solve a lot of problems. Let's run with this.
Let us distinguish between “substantial” and “functional” definitions. I will subsequently apply this to the word “object.” A substantial definitions defines or distinctly characterizes something in terms of what it is by itself, e.g., its substance, essence, quiddity, Platonic form, Aristotelian ousia, etc. A functional definition defines or distinctly characterizes something in terms of how it functions, e.g., its activity, dynamic structure, pattern of effects, etc. The thing literally is its function and ceases to be when it stops functioning or functioning in that way. Hume famously claimed in Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals that justice was such a thing. As I told my Ethics class last semester, there is no justice in Mad Max’s dystopian world, since the social patterns that would give justice its utility and therefore existence would not be operative. This is only one understanding of a functional definition that is either a formal distinction or at best a real distinction, but has no real referent or extension.
Consider the difference between a functional description and a functional definition with real referent or extension. In the former, the description is an analytic tool vs. a definition. “Just think of it this way” is the former, while “it really is this way” is the latter.
Is an “object” a substantial or functional term in OOO, and its it descriptive or definitional? I believe the answer varies depending upon which OOO. It's something to think about if one wants to functionalize OOO. In my own pragmatism, it's all functional, which goes along with processive, but is sometimes descriptive and sometimes definitional depending upon what we're talking about.