I can tell you are trying to convey something I agree with. I am just having a hard time with your terms. Can you elaborate more on each point, or perhaps reword it in such a way that you don't use the same word two different ways in one sentence?
I'll do my best.
"No finite thing has genuine being." Hegel. "The truth is the whole." Hegel.
1. It seems to me that we can only think in unities. All numbers and all words are unities. Our concepts are frames of qualia and/OR other concepts. For instance, "cat" is the word that frames sensations thereby associated with this same word. And animal is a word that includes cat, dog, cow, etc. And life is a word that includes animals (and plants).
2. It gets strange we consider concepts like "concept." The frame of a frame, or the form of forms in general. Another difficult word is "mind." For mind is a terribly inclusive concept. Hence idealism.
3. Hegel's system was called Absolute Idealism, but it's not really idealism. Why not? Because Hegel abandoned Kant's "noumena." THere was no longer a good place to draw a line between mind and not-mind. Because mind was a concept in the (-----------). We can't name the essence of our experience, for any essence we name is just an invention. This would be to mistake the creation from the inferred/deduced creator. This is why negative theology and/or negative ontology is so powerful. It's like going from the digits of arithmetic to the variables of algebra. To earnestly wrestle with mind/matter problems is, in my view, to waste time on confusions. To mistake concepts for transconceptual realities. I don't think we can experience trans-conceptual realities. And this is why a good ontology/theology must be negative. Or a realization that our reality is conceptual, and always and only conceptual. From this we deduce but cannot directly perceive a "transcendental analytic" of unity. A concept is a unity. Draw a circle around sensation or other circles, and this is concept. Like set theory. Mathematics seems to mirror the transcendental structure of much human thinking. But I'm out of time. More later. I'll be happy to clarify, as I find the subject interesting.
Thanks for caring in the first place.