Vladimir,
I'm not sure that I understand your essay, although I think we agree on key issues. I believe most of our differences are terminology based. We seem to be saying the same things but with a very different vocabulary.
You discuss the "ontological justification of fundamental knowledge" and the "total ontological unification of matter at all levels of reality as a whole...". The key to these is, I believe the actual "being" or ontological existence of matter, and the "awareness" of this being, which leads to what you call "ontological memory". Either these are two separate aspects of reality, or they are unified. In my essay I propose that they are unified, in the existence of the self-interacting and self-aware primordial field which I identify as the gravitational field present at the big bang and evolving to our current state solely through self-interaction. You identify the "structure of language" as a "house of Being" based on "linear-wave-vortex". I'm not at all sure what this means, but the self-evolution of the field that I speak of would interpret 'linear' as the basis of extension, hence space; 'wave' as the nature of cyclical action, hence time; and 'vortex' as the nature of localization, leading to particular matter as derived from concentration (in soliton-form) of the material field. Once particles exist, sustainable structure is possible, and this is the prerequisite (as I understand it) for 'ontological memory'.
The only question is then how awareness interfaces to the structure. You say "consciousness is included in the world as a whole through the phenomenon of understanding [...] of objective laws of nature." The essence of consciousness is [unstructured] awareness, and I posit this in the primordial field. Moreover the 'degree' of local awareness is coupled to the motion (change) of mass, not the (static) existence of mass. This is made clearer in my essay and references. I also address how the 'objective laws of nature' are derived from such structure.
I lay out the above comment for the purpose of helping to translate between your essay and my essay, which, I believe are saying much the same thing [and certainly are addressing the same problem!].
Thank you for your stimulating essay, and good luck in the contest.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman