As result of certain abstraction, be it focus or attention, we get to a certain and concrete given, which is not given in general, but is the specific given (on which we can do further abstractions).
The concrete, as given, and not as abstract, exists as actual.
It can be further determined as abstract.
For example, if you focus on the color of the ball, the resulting quale is what is concrete and actual, and which exists. It can be further determined as red for example, but it doesn’t have its existence as abstraction; but that which is given, and which is existant can be further determined as abstraction.
Note 1:If we combine this with what was said about where the concrete meets the abstract, we get to the funny result that one abstraction which is same with the given,”nothing”, can be said that comes closest to concrete existence then any other abstraction.
Note 2:This connection between given and existence, ammounts in its simplest form to the giveness of fact that “experience of something exists as experience of that something”. How that something is further determined (real thing, or illusion, or ostensible object, or maya, etc..), is separate question.
Note 3:Existence of abstractions as acts (abstractions as result is concrete) will need to be analyzed in some other post. Do they exist? If true, in what way do they exists, as Platonic forms, as transcendental categories, as cognitive powers, or something else?
A brood comb 