The shift away from "passive, mental shaping" to "instrumental shaping" is akin to Bryant's objects enacting their actualities in exo-relations with other objects. And which does not need reference a human object aka 'mental' shaping, thereby avoiding an epistemic fallacy. Granted some kind of observation is needed, that is, an experimental (experiential) context within which an object interacts with another object, thus creating an instrumental shaping.
The ontological is not ontotheological in that a priories are not transcendent but constructed (built), and they can and do change depending on "mode of activity," much akin to Bryant's not only changing exo- but endo-relations, the 'virtual' side of an object.
This is related to my prior criticisms of set theory and the MHC, which presupposes a universal de-contextualization. Hence Commons even relates the MHC to ideal Platonic forms. Bitbol explains that we must remove this 'constraint' and contextualize through transcendental deductions. He then goes into a incomprehensible (to me) discussion of how set theory etc. is still useful if limited, and how it can be organized into some kind of meta-math, but it was over my head. If any math-heads can elucidate please do.
All of this math and deduction though can only describe an object under very limited and specific experimental conditions, akin to Bryant's exo-relations. But the object's virtual substance cannot be accounted for, let alone its actuality in toto.
This reiterates Bryant's (and Morton's) notions that we cannot get outside our limited 'awareness' to some totality or assholon, always requiring some sort of context within which to relate or respond. Granted we can speculate about transcendental conditions but it leaves a lot open, not only in the future but in the past and present as well, given virtuality.
Also recall Bryant's blog post here.
While refuting transcendent ethical principles he nonetheless asserts an ethics specific to particular 'regimes of attraction.' He also cites Bennett's use of Dewey on this (recall Putnum's use of Dewey on pluralists a priories). Bryant though realizes this could be cause to call relativism. He says just because there are no absolute values doesn't mean we cannot say what are better or worse values based on health/pathology and preservation/destruction. He admits that this might be sneaking a transcendent in the back door.
I'd argue that it is not transcendent but immanent because it is based on material embodiment, which comes before abstract principles. It is only when abstract principles are divorced from their embodiment that we get the kind of abstract, ideal and ontotheological universals. So one issue is, can we have such universal principles that are embodied and thus not ontotheologial? Might it be something like Bitbol's meta-math that provides a quasi-universal to organize set theories? Or like some kind of integral meta-theory that does the same for theories? This might also be a sort of embodied transcendental, in that the body (and its health and survival) is the necessary presupposition for abstract universals?