Haecceity 2.9.0 contains the constituent language this here now. A result of the use of the algorithm to solve the problems of number, distribution, figure and ground, and asymmetry that arise in relation to situating language on a two-dimensional surface is that any particular instance of this is so connected to a particular instance of here and to a particular instance of now that the ordered way in which these words stand to one another cannot be seen but only understood. As a result, one might speak of a hole in the field of vision that is filled by the understanding of the relation of these things to one another. The constituent language this here now of Haecceity 2.9.0 then partially marks areas of calculated repetition that exist as parts of patterned distributions of words within matrices in which the relation of these words to one another does not obviously appear. But given their relation to understanding, the distributed tokens of this here now can be understood to identify specific instances of coordinated visible and linguistic spaces that contain what is required to single them out as here-and-now individuals even if they cannot be seen to occupy the determined areas that they can nevertheless be understood to compose.

A further relation to understanding is at work in this work since a particular understanding is required for this Haecceity to single out what it is meant to single out. More particularly, its singling something out depends on understanding something to be something other than what is understood to be singled out by this here now but only in virtue of now being understood to be something other than this here now. And the only thing that could be understood to be so singled out is an event of understanding that grasps itself as that which creates the difference to be understood in that act of understanding. It then establishes the being understood to answer to the Haecceity in understanding itself to create the relevant distinction to be understood as it consists of that understanding.

The two kinds of understanding noted to be relevant to this work depend on the visible language of the perceptual object being seen, read, and understood. Accordingly, these two kinds of understanding are linked as transparent or invisible entities through apprehension of the visible words of the language that makes each possible. This work makes use of kinds of perceptual and conceptual object that fill in the content, and shape the structure, of the conscious events on which the objects depend. And they do so as the form and content of what is understood depends on the relations to one another of the perceptual and conceptual objects and conscious events to which they are directed. The interrelations of these objects and events – objects to objects, events to events, and objects and events to one another – with the respective nature of each, constitute what I call the ‘deep form’ and ‘layered content’ that together characterize works of Essentialist Abstraction. – Essentialism and Its Objects: Identity and Abstraction in Language, Thought, and Action. (Publication forthcoming. © Jeffrey Strayer, 2019.)

For additional commentary on Haecceity 2.9.0 see Haecceities: Essentialism, Identity, and Abstraction.

On the notions of deep form and layered content see Essentialism and Its Objects: Identity and Abstraction in Language, Thought, and Action (forthcoming).