Doctrine

Being by Proxy

Focality is being by proxy: where the primary case holds the derivative’s title to count as a being at all, the derivative’s standing is administered elsewhere.

Cite this as

Montaruli, Alessio. “Being by Proxy.” Version 1.2. Ethical Ontology doctrine pages, 4 August 2026. Concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21749202.

---

The thesis

Focality becomes ontological substitution when the primary case holds the derivative’s title to count as a being on the derivative’s behalf, so that the derivative appears in the ontological inventory on a warrant it does not itself hold.

In short: focality is being by proxy. Being by Proxy is the thesis’s public name. “Ontological substitution” names the operation inside the defining sentence. Numbered descriptions such as “a fourth reading of focality” locate the thesis among received readings and are not its name.

The title is compressed shorthand. The defining sentence is conditional: focality becomes being by proxy only where a derivative’s title is actually held at another seat. A focal order in which each member holds its own standing, while the primary merely organises, explains, causes, sustains, recognises, or names the order, is not ontological substitution.

The four places

The relation contains four irreducible places:

1. Title. The standing under which the beneficiary counts within an ontological inventory, constituted phenomenality, or another order whose admission conditions are themselves ontologically at issue.
2. Holder. The case, structure, or seat at which the warrant for that standing terminates.
3. Beneficiary. The case that appears under the title without itself holding the warrant.
4. Appearing on another’s warrant. The allocation by which the beneficiary counts through standing located elsewhere.

The holder need not be a person, agent, substance, or additional inventory item. “Holding” names the location and exercise of the warrant, not a psychological act of possession.

The holder is the case, structure, or seat at which the beneficiary’s warrant for inventory-entry terminates.

What this says

The tradition’s most elegant answer to the plurality of being is the focal structure: being is said in many ways, but the many are ordered toward one primary case, the way “healthy” is said first of the animal and derivatively of diet, complexion, urine, and exercise. The structure has been read primarily through three offices:

• Meaning or definitional dependence: the derivative sense is defined through the primary.
• Explanatory or grounding dependence: the primary accounts for the derivative.
• Causal or sustaining dependence: the primary produces, conserves, or sustains the derivative.

This thesis identifies a fourth office that those relations do not by themselves determine. Some cases stand in an inventory not on a title they themselves hold, but on a warrant held elsewhere. Where the focal structure works this way, the primary is not merely a definition-anchor, explanation, or cause. It holds the title under which the beneficiary counts.

“Fourth” means a fourth office, not a fourth mutually exclusive class of cases. A primary may define, explain, cause, sustain, and hold title in the same structure. Co-instantiation does not establish reduction.

The relevant questions are different:

• Causal sustaining asks: what keeps this obtaining?
• Grounding asks: in virtue of what does this fact obtain?
• Title-holding asks: on whose warrant does this count within the order?

A grounding calculus may represent the covariance between a primary and a beneficiary without deciding whether the beneficiary possesses its own standing or appears on standing held elsewhere. Representability is not identity.

Distinctness without separability

Title-holding does not require that holding and causal sustaining be independently switchable. Two offices may be distinct in object and function while being exercised by the same case, realised in the same act, and terminated by the same event.

Distinctness of office does not require separability of exercise.

Revocation is therefore not defined as a second discretionary act performed while sustaining continues. It names the lapse of standing from the seat at which the title terminates. Where holding and sustaining are inseparable in exercise, their cessation may be one event while their offices remain distinct.

What “substitution” means

Being by proxy is not replacement. The beneficiary does not leave the inventory so that the holder may occupy its place. The beneficiary remains precisely the case whose standing is at issue. What is elsewhere is not the beneficiary but the warrant on which it counts.

Nor does “proxy” mean that the holder merely represents the beneficiary, speaks for it, resembles it, supplies a linguistic abbreviation, or acts as an epistemic route to it. Representation and recognition may accompany title-holding, but neither is sufficient for it.

The substitution concerns the office of title-holding: the beneficiary remains; its standing is exercised from another seat; another case, structure, or regime answers for its admission.

The confirmed instance: Schürmann’s hegemonic fantasm

The clearest confirmed instance presently known is Reiner Schürmann’s hegemonic fantasm in Broken Hegemonies.

A hegemonic fantasm is the sovereign referent around which a linguistic epoch organises its phenomenality. Schürmann says that it constitutes the phenomenality of phenomena, “justifies all that may become a phenomenon,” serves “to say what is, to classify and inscribe,” and supplies that in whose name a culture speaks and acts. It imposes a standard sense of being under which singulars are ranged as particulars. When the hegemony breaks, the singular remains available for what Schürmann calls “re-accreditation” (Broken Hegemonies, trans. Reginald Lilly, 2003, pp. 6-12).

The four places are filled:

1. Title: standing within an epoch’s constituted phenomenality, under its standard sense of being.
2. Holder: the hegemonic fantasm, concretely the One, Nature, Consciousness, or another sovereign referent.
3. Beneficiary: the given singular admitted into the order as a particular.
4. Proxy allocation: the singular counts within that order on the authority of the fantasm under which it is classified and inscribed.

The fantasm does not produce the singular or supply its intrinsic profile. The singular is the phenomenal datum from which the common representation was extracted and which remains available when the hegemony is destituted. What lapses is the title under which the singular appeared within that constituted phenomenality.

Schürmann therefore supplies an instance of title-holding without isolating it as a distinct dependence relation. He does not separate the authority of the sovereign referent from the title under which the singular appears; distinguish holder from beneficiary as two places in an allocation; separate title-location from causal, explanatory, constitutive, or normative relations; or identify the structure as a relation in a dependence taxonomy.

Schürmann supplies the first known instance without conceptual isolation. Being by Proxy isolates and names the relation instantiated there.

The holder may be a regime of sense

Schürmann’s holder is not another entity standing beside the singular. It is a regime of sense that occupies the seat from which phenomenality is administered.

That does not remove the relation from ontology. The object of the dependence is the beneficiary’s standing to count within an inventory or constituted phenomenality. A metaphysical relation is not excluded because one of its places is occupied by a structure, fact, office, or regime rather than a substance.

The case therefore corrects an unnecessary restriction: title-holding is a relation between a beneficiary’s standing and the seat at which its warrant terminates. The seat may, but need not, be an entity or agent.

Title-location and legitimacy

Schürmann’s fantasm reigns without justified credentials. Its authority is posited and usurpative. This does not defeat the instance, because title-location and title-legitimacy are different questions.

Title-holding locates the operative warrant. It does not certify the holder’s right to hold it.

A title may be rightful, delegated, inherited, contested, forged, or usurped. An illegitimate sovereign can still occupy the seat from which admission and exclusion are administered. The pathology may disclose the relation without defining the relation as pathological.

The participation tradition: candidate allocation, not automatic proof

The participation tradition supplies the major historical field in which the title question arises. The contrast between ens per essentiam and ens per participationem distinguishes what is in its own right from what receives and depends upon being. Conservation and annihilation doctrines sharpen that dependence.

Participation alone, however, does not decide title-location. At least three structures must be distinguished:

• Gift-dependence: what is conferred becomes genuinely the derivative’s own, even though its continued obtaining depends upon the source.
• Substitution proper: the derivative appears on standing that remains held at the primary’s seat.
• Occasionalist limit: the derivative’s office is evacuated so completely that it becomes doubtful whether a beneficiary remains whose title could be held by proxy.

The causal, participatory, and explanatory descriptions may remain similar across gift and substitution. The title question asks what those descriptions leave open. The tradition’s oscillation among the readings is evidence that the received relations do not automatically settle the allocation. It is not by itself a verdict that Aristotle, Aquinas, or every participatory ontology instantiates title-holding.

Historical attribution and systematic instantiation must therefore remain separate. A source may supply material that admits a title-holding reconstruction without having formulated or endorsed the relation as such.

Courtesy is a control, not an instance

Courtesy cases show that standing may be administered, extended, or discounted without causal sustaining. They help separate the standing register from the causal register.

They are not title-holding where there is no beneficiary appearing on another’s ontological warrant, no custodian holding the title, and no determinate seat at which inventory-standing terminates.

Courtesy is standing discounted. Proxy is standing held.

Courtesy is therefore a negative control. It does not supply title-holding without grounding or title-holding without causal sustaining, and no double dissociation should be built from treating it as an instance.

Institutional status is not automatically ontological title

Easy institutional examples must also be resisted.

A dissolved corporation does not automatically establish title-holding. If the legal relations withdrawn partly constitute the corporation, the alleged beneficiary has not remained fixed while merely losing a title. Identifying the corporation with the buildings, employees, or social materials that survive dissolution changes the subject.

A demonetised banknote also fails automatically. If the beneficiary is the physical note, it remains a being and loses only legal-tender status. If the beneficiary is “the legal-tender object,” the withdrawn determination is part of the description under which the alleged beneficiary was fixed.

Institutional status administration is a neighbouring field. A positive case requires a beneficiary that remains the same relevant case and loses the warrant under which it counted in the ontological order, not merely a legal, ritual, functional, semantic, or honorific qualification.

The sorting instrument

The title question is not exhausted by the phrase “where is the standing defended?” That wording can sound merely dialectical or epistemological. The complete instrument is:

1. What standing is at issue? What does the beneficiary count as, and is the standing ontological rather than merely legal, ritual, functional, semantic, social, moral, or honorific?
2. What is the beneficiary? What remains identifiable through the allocation?
3. Where does the warrant terminate? Does the standing terminate in the beneficiary itself or at another seat?
4. Is there a holder-beneficiary allocation? Does the other seat merely cause, explain, recognise, represent, permit, or define the beneficiary, or does it hold the warrant under which the beneficiary appears?
5. What lapses when the seat is destituted? The beneficiary, its intrinsic profile, a public description, practical authority, access, or the title under which it counted?
6. Is the title legitimate? Rightful, inherited, delegated, contested, forged, usurped, or indeterminate?

The first questions articulate the proposed allocation. The destitution question supplies an important test. None is a mechanical decision procedure, and the legitimacy question never decides title-location.

The genealogy, credited exactly

The components of the discovery are distributed throughout the tradition.

Practised and approached

The pros hen structure supplied focal reference. Participation supplied received and conserved being. Extrinsic denomination supplied names borne through another. These are neighbouring structures and historical fields, not automatic instances.

Half-seen

Heidegger possessed principal components in separate registers: the onto-theological ground-structure, the explicit failure of substitution in Unvertretbarkeit, and the accounting grammar of ratio reddenda. Ground, proxy, and accounting remained unwired because the missing register was ontological standing: title distinguished from what answers on the title, and the seat of standing distinguished from the beneficiary whose standing it is.

Instantiated without isolation

Schürmann crossed the inventory wall. The hegemonic fantasm administers what may become a phenomenon under a standard sense of being and holds the authority under which singulars are classified as particulars. He supplies the first known instance without conceptual isolation.

Isolated and named

This thesis adds the explicit join:

• title;
• holder;
• beneficiary;
• appearing on another’s warrant;
• title-location distinguished from legitimacy;
• title-holding distinguished from definition, grounding, explanation, causation, recognition, representation, and institutional status.

The originality claim is therefore narrower than the claim that no ancestor came close, and stronger than a new metaphor:

No prior text has yet been found that isolates this four-place allocation as a distinct ontological dependence relation and supplies the instrument by which gift, substitution, and neighbouring relations can be distinguished.

The mirror

This corpus’s central category was reached through the opposed structure. The who is the modal category of the whole obtaining as someone rather than merely something. Its differentia is ownness, disclosed through non-vicariousness.

In being by proxy, the title under which the beneficiary counts is exercised from another seat. In the who, the whole obtaining cannot be exercised from another’s place. The first is an architecture of vicarious standing. The second is the character through which ownness becomes visible as non-vicarious.

This is not a contrast between what can and cannot be copied, or between replaceable and irreplaceable objects. A perfect copy may fail to restore a canvas without disclosing a who. Non-substitutability alone does not entail ownness.

The symmetry does not prove either thesis. It explains the route by which the relation became visible. The title-holding claim must survive its textual and structural trials; the who-doctrine must survive its own substitution trials.

No new first principle

The mirror does not install ownness as a replacement foundation. Ownness grounds no who, produces none, and stands beneath none. It names how a whole obtains. A mode is not a principle.

The who-category stands among categorially distinct ways of obtaining rather than above them. The point is not to remove the traditional primary and place the who in its seat. It is to expose the difference between an ontology in which standing is held on another’s behalf and a category whose obtaining cannot be held, exercised, or answered for from elsewhere.

What is not claimed

The thesis does not claim:

• that all focality is substitution;
• that every semantic, explanatory, causal, participatory, analogical, conservational, recognitional, representational, or institutional dependence is title-holding;
• that title-holding excludes the simultaneous operation of those relations;
• that distinct offices must be independently exercisable;
• that the holder must be an entity or agent;
• that an operative title is legitimate;
• that derivative beings are unreal, illusory, merely verbal, or identical with the holder;
• that Aristotle, Aquinas, or every historical use of pros hen has already been convicted of substitution;
• that the who is the primary way of being, the measure of other categories, or a new ground.

Nor does the thesis dismiss the focal structure’s power. An answer that organised two millennia of metaphysics is not a simple mistake. It is a structure whose offices and costs require discrimination.

How this could be false

This page follows the site’s standing discipline: the conditions of defeat are printed with the claim.

1. A prior articulation

Produce a text that does more than describe participation, focality, authority, grounding, extrinsic denomination, or sovereign phenomenality. The precedent must isolate a title to count within an ontological order, a holder, a beneficiary, appearing on another’s warrant, and the allocation as distinct from causal, definitional, or explanatory dependence.

Schürmann is credited as the first known instance without conceptual isolation. A text that also performs the isolation would become the prior articulation or co-discovery, and the originality claim would end.

2. Collapse into definitional dependence

Show that “defined through the primary” and “counting on the primary’s warrant” cannot come apart. If title-location adds nothing beyond semantic or essential dependence, the fourth office collapses into the first.

3. Collapse into grounding

Show that grounding, without importing title-location into its own base, determines whether the beneficiary holds its own standing or appears on standing terminating elsewhere. It is not enough to show that a grounding formalism can represent the covariance.

4. No genuine beneficiary

Show that in every alleged case the beneficiary either disappears when the supposed title lapses, or survives only because the case equivocates between an entity and one of its legal, semantic, ritual, or functional qualifications.

5. No title beyond neighbouring status

Show that the alleged standing is always merely legal, moral, ritual, epistemic, semantic, social, or honorific, and never concerns entry into an ontological inventory or constituted phenomenality. That would leave a theory of status administration, but not Being by Proxy.

6. Schürmann does not cross the inventory wall

Show that the hegemonic fantasm governs only practical norms or discourse and does not constitute phenomenality, determine what may appear, or supply the standard sense of being under which singulars are classified. That would remove the present confirmed instance and return title-holding to the status of a candidate relation awaiting instantiation.

7. Case-level defeat

Produce a focal order in which the beneficiary’s title is demonstrably held by the beneficiary itself while the primary merely organises, explains, causes, sustains, recognises, or names the order. That would confirm focality without substitution and delimit the thesis’s conditional scope.

Terminological disclosure

The phrase “ontological substitution” has an unrelated recent use as a formal replacement operation in which one element is substituted for another within a domain. Replacement is almost the contrary relation.

In replacement, one item exits and another succeeds it. In being by proxy, the beneficiary remains while counting on a title seated elsewhere. The homonymy is stated so the reader need not discover it for us.

Seat and apparatus

The four readings of focality are separated in Across the Categorial Difference: Focality, Univocity, Ownness, §3 (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21684041). The defining sentence above is quoted from that text, and what prints first binds.

The definition is deployed self-standing in Begleiten können: Ownness and the Warrant Structure of the Critical Architecture, §2.3, where the demarcation question is argued in §2.6. The mirror is stated in The Who as a Modal Category, §6, and developed through the substitution trials of Ethical Ontology.

The confirmed instance is drawn from Reiner Schürmann, Broken Hegemonies, translated by Reginald Lilly (Indiana University Press, 2003), General Introduction, especially pp. 6-12.

The deposited doctrine record is collected under Concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21749202. Zenodo holds the deposited versions; the page at ethicalontology.org/doctrine/being-by-proxy remains the living statement. All texts are open access and hash-verified at ethicalontology.org/integrity.

This page follows the doctrine section’s rule: it states what is claimed, what is inherited, what is not claimed, and how it could be false.

Version 1.2 note

Version 1.2 makes the following substantive corrections and clarifications:

• credits Schürmann’s hegemonic fantasm as the first known instance without conceptual isolation;
• replaces the former “nearest approach” and “inventory wall” verdict;
• states the four places explicitly;
• clarifies that the holder may be a regime, structure, or seat rather than an entity;
• separates title-location from legitimacy;
• separates distinctness of office from separability of exercise;
• removes courtesy from the positive dissociation and classifies it as a negative control;
• rejects corporate dissolution and demonetisation as automatic instances;
• distinguishes the participation field from a positive historical verdict;
• expands the sorting instrument and defeat conditions;
• narrows the originality claim to the explicit isolation and naming of the four-place relation.

The defining sentence and the conditional thesis remain unchanged.

• Doctrine The other standing statements.
• Seat Where the four readings of focality are separated and the fourth established.