While I might be very naive or uninformed, the thoughts in this article and in its comments seem to center around discrimination. I encountered the term discrimination in a book of analytic philosophy, I forget by who. I also relate discrimination to Deleuze and his differences, though I haven't read him deeply. I also relate discrimination to Priest in the quote above talking about standing out, which I encountered in Sartre, where he talked about meeting Peter at a cafe. Peter stands out at the cafe, and (were it the case) so does his absence, so in this context, Peter and Peter's absence are both "things" to us.

Discrimination is sort of the antithesis of Parmenides-style monism. Thought and language is all about relating one thing to another (including its non-relation) -- discriminating everything (the one) into pieces of everything ("pieces" meaning any postulated entity other than everything).

Thinking about this leads to our being biological creatures that evolved for survival. Everything presents itself to us ("the given"). We find Deleuzian differences. Are they present in the given, or do our minds create differences which we start discriminating (analyzing)? I'm not sure the human mind can answer that question, because we don't know what if anything preceded the differences.

Nature programmed us to discriminate in order to survive. Our power is in processing what we discriminate. But we discriminate within a field (Gabriel's field of fields?). We can't discriminate the field itself. The field is everything and nothing, the universe, Being, etc. Our minds aren't built to make meaning out of the field itself. Seemingly, it just isn't. Although it's fun and instructive to try.