Thank you for your thoughtful response. If you’d go into more detail, I’d appreciate it, as I don’t fully understand all your points.

In reply to your thoughts as I understand them so far, I see intuition of, and experience of, Being as two different things. Truth units come out of the experience of Being (as Heidegger defined it). Intuition of Being I see as ‘synonymous’ with truth units, perhaps in the ‘primal’ truth units that come out of Being.

So when you say “truth units are interpreted against an intuitive understanding of Being which we may (and often do) diverge on,” I see that “intuitive understanding” as being ‘composed’ of truth units, and since truth units are unique to each person, they naturally diverge.

I’ve read McGilchrist’s The Master and His Emissary. I think it’s a very important and insightful work. Assuming for now The Matter of Things grows out of ideas in The Master and His Emissary, looking at your ideas and latter book together, It might be fair to say the right brain is experience and the left brain is words about experience. As Wittgenstein might say, we ‘listen’ to the right brain (what he called "the mystical”) but we cannot put what the right brain says into words—that is what the left brain does. So one thought is that right brain truth units cannot be expressed in words, which is consistent with truth units being ultimately representations.

Reading The Master and His Emissary was a painful experience for me, so it’s hard for me to think about reading The Matter of Things.