“A deductive specification becomes a Haecceity when it is consciously completed with the word or words required to complete it. The omitted word that is to be understood to complete the deductive specification to become Haecceity 4.7.0 is apprehension, and because the understanding of that is an event of a kind that is named by the word that is the object of that understanding, there is a clear and simple relation between the identification of the word and the word itself that pertains to the act of its own identification.

“While there is no problem with understanding how to complete Haecceity 4.7.0, there is a ‘paradox of apprehension’ that can be understood to result from apprehending the Haecceity completed. The language of this Haecceity is written to single out events of apprehending things that are named by the Haecceity to be singled out in relation to its apprehension. The paradox of apprehension for this Haecceity follows from the fact that, in understanding the Haecceity, it is understood that anything then apprehended in apprehending it is prohibited from being singled out by the Haecceity understood. And that includes that understanding. Thus, when the latter understanding occurs in virtue of apprehending the Haecceity, it must be understood to be excluded from answering to the Haecceity that makes that understanding possible. And that dimension of that apprehension is part of the content of the excluded apprehension, and is so as that apprehension is indexed to the language that makes the apprehension of its exclusion possible. Because of the way that this specification is written to function in relation to its apprehension, nothing understood to be specified by it can be understood to be specified by it given that apprehension.” – Haecceities: Essentialism, Identity, and Abstraction

For additional commentary on Haecceity 4.7.0 see Haecceities: Essentialism, Identity, and Abstraction.