F -ness is F . Participating in F -ness is supposed to explain being F . F -ness is F . The theory becomes incomplete . Forms will no longer be paradigms .
Some explanations become circular .
The upshot of the TMA is that the Theory of Forms cannot provide a complete account of predication by means of the notion of participation. OM should then be rejected on the grounds that it is in the nature of a paradigm of F -ness that nothing explains its being F . Rather, it explains other things' being F . For the paradigm itself must bear the predicate, and there we have a case of predication that the theory cannot explain without circularity. This is a difficult question.