Haecceity 2.10.1 is written so that “understanding that apprehending the conditions required to determine to what the Haecceity refers itself determines to what the Haecceity refers, and does so as those conditions are understood to inform the understanding to which their apprehension pertains. The previous language can be understood to summarize the conceptual nature of the Haecceity, but not to limit it to the elemental sense in which the specification would function in relation to its comprehension as a single individual token of the Haecceity . . . Rather, it can also be understood to pertain to comprehending the meaning of the Haecceity in relation to the sophisticated space of apprehension determined in part by the distribution of tokens of the Haecceity in the visual space of the perceptual object, as can be seen in the image above. And comprehending the meaning of the Haecceity in relation to that sophisticated space, or understanding how such comprehension figures in the production of the ideational object that the work of that Haecceity is meant to be, is of greater importance to the nature of the identity of the work that is determined in relation to that comprehension than is understanding what is specified by the Haecceity as exhibited in the basic space of conventional language.” – Haecceities: Essentialism, Identity, and Abstraction

For additional commentary on Haecceity 2.10.1 see Haecceities: Essentialism, Identity, and Abstraction.