So, are you assuming you were able to read my essay and generate a true understanding of it? How is that possible?

I can assure you that UTOK does not presume a naive perceptual realism (i.e., that we simply open our eyes and perceive the world). It is Kantian in the sense that it embraces the claim that perspectivally we have access to phenomena. However, following Bhaskar, it does not reduce ontology to epistemology. Hoffman’s system, as far as I understand it, does exactly that, in an extreme and deeply problematic way. Any coherent metaphysical system must clarify the ontological/ontic and epistemological/epistemic relation. UTOK does this in a way that is far more intelligible, comprehensive, coherent and plausible than Hoffman.