Hi Cristi,
well, there's always a question of how much leeway we allow ourselves in seeing similarities---with enough coarse-graining, everything starts to blur together, so maybe I'm just muddling things together that are, in fact, quite different.
But for instance, Sebastian de Haro's essay talks about 'relative fundamentality', you about the 'relativity of fundamentalness' (and both of you highlight the reason for why there are some clumsy formulations in my essay: should it be fundamentality, or fundamentalness?).
This is also something that plays a role in the thinking of Philipp Gibbs, I think: in my discussions with him, the point that there is some mutual relationship between what we think the world is like, and what we are like, has cropped up a fair number of times. As an illustration, take a post-measurement quantum state: the measurement apparatus registers 'up' relative to the electron's spin being 'up', and it registers 'down' relative to that spin being 'down'.
My own take on this is comes from (algorithmic) information theory: a set may contain a vanishing amount of information, but the information content of a subset may be arbitrarily large, but will always be equal to that of its complement---thus, relative to that subset, its complement has a certain information content (which I more or less equate with what's 'fundamental'), and vice versa, but their union has none.
And for an example not from this contest, I think it's Jeff Barrett who points out that Everettian quantum mechanics can be understood as positing that 'facts are relations', in the sense of the example I give above---it's neither a fact that 'the electron's spin is up' nor that 'the electron's spin is down', but rather, the factual content of quantum mechanics concerns the relations between electron spins and measurement apparatus states.
All of this, to me, seems to be similar to the idea of Indra's net: every bead reflects every other; and moreover, the whole of the character of any given bead is exhausted by the reflection it shows. There's a sort of mutual dependency here, as with the measurement apparatus and the electron's spin.
But it may be that I'm getting carried away here; I do sometimes have the tendency to overemphasize the connections I see. And similarly, don't expect my essay to be an orthodox reading of Lao Zi---mostly, I use concepts from Daoist and Buddhist philosophy in the same sense that one might use Democritus' atoms today, that is, unified at best by a continuity of theme, not furnishing a literal interpretation.
Still, I'd be very curious to read your comments on my essay!