Could you elaborate on what you mean?

Let's start with Specifically, I keep getting the impression that most (all?) of the arguments for the ontology issues boil down to trusting philosophical intuitions and/or the way people use words. Something along the following lines.

I keep getting the impression almost directly translates to My intuition tells me. You still base your chain of reasoning on it.

Almost none of the reasoning in your post can be expressed by predicate logic and/or probability theory.

While we are at it, it's worth noting that the intuition that probability obviously extends logic is doubtful.

I don't see any reason to associate anything I've said with logical positivism.

You don't see how the claim that everything is explainable with logic and probability theory relates to logical positivism?

Again, my issue is with taking intuitions far beyond these fundamental we-need-to-start-somewhere levels and using them as strong evidence of truth.

You choose a particular set of where to start that's highly culturally charged. Anna Wierzbicka argues for example in "Imprisoned in English" that it makes sense to start with fundamentals that nearly all human cultures agree on such as there being mothers and fathers but for example not brothers as some cultures have that concept while others don't.

You start with the idea that complex concepts like mean, intuition, reason, associate, indicate, issue and evidence as all being fairly straightforward basics while Anna Wierzbicka would take neither of those as fundamentally basic.

All of them are heavily charged with a lot of cultural associations that you likely hold unquestioned because you learned them as a child and never questioned them.