“Every Essentialist artwork depends on understanding a specification in relation to which the intended identity of the work is then determined. Understandings are current historical events that come to be and cease to be in time. Any conscious occurrence not only partially defines the history of awareness of the subject whose occurrence it is, but that event excludes any other thought, perception, understanding, or other conscious event that might have occurred had the event itself not occurred. We commonly understand talk of possibilities to be meaningful, and to be so in addition to thought and commerce that pertain to actualities. Because of the relation of consciousness and agency, most people would think that what we are aware of when we are aware is something of which we are contingently aware, so that it is not contradictory to say that we might have been aware of something other than that of which we are now aware. Accordingly, anytime that someone is attending to a particular work of art can be understood to be a time at which that person could have been aware of something else, had she not then chosen to attend to that work. And we think that the same contingent relation that holds between a conscious subject and an object of her awareness holds between a concipient and her understanding of language on which the identity of a specified artwork depends. The wording of Haecceity 3.29.0 reflects these common and artistic understandings as it delineates the intended identity of its artwork in relation to them, both implicitly and explicitly. – Haecceities: Essentialism, Identity, and Abstraction

For additional commentary on Haecceity 3.29.0 see Haecceities: Essentialism, Identity, and Abstraction.