I start from the origin point of simple experience. This subject perceives sensory properties - for example, a child tastes a sweet square then a sour square. This child learns taste and shape through association and abstraction; this awareness becomes linguistic, resulting in names and accounts for the objects or particulars.

The sensory world is always changing. In the abstract linguistic realm of discriminative/linguistic knowledge, we find unchanging truths such as those of mathematics and logic. From thes proceeds the success of modern empirical methods and their contribution to modern philosophical accounts of causality and substance.

Skeptical hypotheses do not have enough evidence to be taken seriously, but we can learn from them that there are foundations to our knowledge of the physical world which are rooted in conceptions of causality, part-whole dynamics, and extension.

How does this give insight into metaphysical substance and causality? All intellectualizations can contain associative meaning only within their particular linguistic contexts. So in the simplest, most abstract epistemology, meaning or truth is a shifting here-now dynamic, with real content and unity, but which is incomprehensible in its whole essence.

The point I extract from this is that any metaphysical or ontological account must admit that causality, part-whole dynamics, and extension in the world are always changing. There is a shifting, incomprehensible unity called meaning or truth within the linguistic project; we usually think in the contexts of mathematics and logic using the aspects of cause, part-whole, and extension; but we must see those conceptions as being valid for sensory and intellectual understanding only, not truth or meaning as it corresponds to our physical reality as it actually is, in context. So we must include the negations of those extension/part whole/cause categories in our account of truth and meaning - formlessness, singularity and pure difference, and unchanging-ness as the dynamics.