Preliminaries for Propositions on the Nature of Existence

I would need to argue that that with a lower state of existence than another could not give rise to the latter. With this proposition proved, our argument has full basis.

By definition, that with a greater level of existence has greater essence, and the existence of a substance is defined to be its extent of being in the field of knowledge.

We take as an axiom, that all that exists must exist in itself as a whole or in something else as a part. For that which exists in something else is a form of its singularity. We could redefine our axiom to state that all that exists, exists as a singularity or as form. If one doubts this, conceive of something which does not fulfil such criterion. This cements my proposition that the singularity-form structures are archetypes that we use to understand being.

Now, does the form give rise to the singularity or the singularity to the form. It should make itself clear that this is the same as the initial argument. Suppose that the form gives rise to the singularity.
The form has lesser essence in our system of metaphysics. Suppose the form has a greater essence than the singularity from which it had sprung forth from. Since the singularity had produced infinite forms through its being then the form in question must also in essence be able to produce infinitely many forms and hence act as a singularity. From mathematics it is understood that a subset of a set can contain at most the number of elements of the set. And hence the latter singularity could at most contain the number of elements or the essence of the initial singularity. And two singularities with the same essence are one and the same, for their existence is defined by their inner essence. So the latter singularity, the initial form is able to produce its initial singularity. But this very clearly contradicts our definitions.