It’s a complete foundational ontology. That’s by no means mediocre. Philosophy today is more specialized, philosophy like this is rare. Philosophy like this hasn’t come along in decades, perhaps centuries.
It’s similar to the philosophy of Parmenides yet provides explicit, functional terms and definitions. The ontology also features theological versatility, something else not found in Parmenides’ philosophy. Parmenides didn’t even explicitly define his terms.
The ontology is also comparable to Spinoza, however much more concise and accessible without the pantheistic rigidity. The philosophy presented is quite significant.
That is a grand oversimplification. Nowhere in the essay is “existence exists” explicitly expressed. In fact argumentation and explication are provided to address that very issue:
This is further addressed in the Additional Notes section:
…which ties into the Significance Of Perception section:
Continuing, you stated:
Well, the subject is philosophy, not science. Although the essay does address and include science: