One example is Joseph commenting in this IPS post. My response follows:
"...however, she makes an understandable mistake."
Only if what she says has to fit into a magical-mythical formulation like the Sepher Yetzirah and Cube, as if they were laid down by the immutable law of God. Oh yeah, that is how they both started...
On a more mundane level, I think Semetsky's notion of 0 being Peirce's Firstness makes sense, as I noted about it earlier in the thread (here and following). That is, if it is more akin to the withdrawn c(h)ore(a) of all aspects of semiotics, from signifier to signified to referent which should be the 'center' of a model as in Bryant's Borromean diagram. True, it doesn't 'fit' into the Cube that way. But it wouldn't fit into Peirce's Firstness either if it was taken not as the withdrawn but correlated with one of the 3 aspects of signs. Same goes for Wilber trying to fit the referent into the LL quadrant. We get too attached to our models so that everything must fit nice and tidy whether they do or not. If not, then the model should change to fit the facts on the ground,* not the other way around.
* Aka postmetaphysical enacted worldspace, if we must speak kennilingus. Allelujia for (earlier) Bhaskar and Morin (and Derrida and DeLanda and Deleuze and Bryant etc.) entering into the debate.