Actuality and Modal Logic

A debate in contemporary Modal Logic is whether or not there is an Actual World.  The debate seems confused in two main respects.  First, as is the case with the discipline in general, it is unclear if the debate is Methodological or Ontological.  Second, arguments against recognition of an Actual World are often on the grounds that there is no such privileged World.  So, in that case, what is being affirmed is that there are multiple Actual Worlds, not none, i. e. as if it were an expression of a variety of Perspectivism.  Regardless, at the root of the confusion is the absence, conspicuous in a context in which precision is among the highest values, of any definition of 'actuality'.  The defense of that absence on the grounds that the term is primitive seems to evade potentially considerable complication.  For, even as primitive, the use must be consistent with the pervasive uses of terms like 'act', activate', 'actualization', etc., all of which seem too unwieldy for Modal Logic.  For example, in the terms of that system, to 'actualize' might be represented as to 'move from a possible world to an actual world', thereby raising a manifold of questions about what obtains in between a possible world and an actual world, answering which seems well beyond the scope of casual Ontology or Epistemology.  So, as is, in the context of contemporary Modal Logic, 'actuality' is no more than a symbol that is as empty as the square and the diamond, to be evaluated only in terms of its fruitfulness, with respect to which any other debate about it is idle.