 So suppose, on the other hand, that one places the world at the level of sense, on the grounds that the world is composed of facts, and that that is where facts are located. This ontological dispensation is explicitly embraced by McDowell (1996: 179). The problem with this way out of the dilemma would seem to be that, since Fregean senses are constitutively modes of presentation of referents, the strategy under current consideration would take the world to be made up of modes of presentation—but of what? Of objects and properties? These are certainly reference-level entities, but if they are presented by items in the realm of sense, which is being identified on this approach with the world, then again, as on the first horn of the dilemma, they would appear to be condemned to an existence at the level of reference in splendid isolation from one another, rather than in propositionally structured combinations, so that once more we would seem to be committed to a form of Kantian transcendental idealism (see Suhm, Wagemann, &amp; Wessels 2000: 32; Sullivan 2005: 59–61; Gaskin 2006:199–203). Both ways out of the dilemma appear to have this unattractive consequence. The only difference between those ways concerns where exactly in the semantic hierarchy we locate the world; but it is plausible that that issue, in itself, is or ought to be of less concern to metaphysicians than the requirement to avoid divorcing objects from the properties that make those objects things of certain sorts; and both ways out of the dilemma appear to flout this requirement.