Addendum on sets as referencing devices

'6' is the name of 6 and '6' refers to 6.  But we don't tend to think of '6' as an object to be quantified over.  On the other hand, '{6}' is the name of {6}. '{6}' refers to {6}, and {6} refers to 6.  Yet we do tend to think of sets like {6} as objects---primarily because they are the targets of reference: {{6}, 7} refers to {6}---and we do, when doing mathematics, quantify over them.  So sets seem to occupy a kind of no man's land---they both refer and are referred to.  This further confuses their 'ontological status'.  The situation is perhaps analogous to Frege's concept Horse which is primarily a concept, not an object, but when talked about as opposed to with, has to be seen as an object.