e raft of messages my original email seems to have
provoked.
I have looked through them and I think that there may be some
misunderstandings, which I will try to clarify.

You wrote:
There is an alternative conclusion, which is that alternative ways of
thinking about a topic might all be equally valid and coherent, even
though they differ from one another. The proposal to find a single
coherent upper-level ontology then amounts to an insistence that all
but one of these alternative ways of thinking are wron