How lightly can you touch on something without violating it by your touch? Why does the modern Logician not include the ‘Subjective’ presence so integral to Nāmarūpa within his own definition of ‘Form’?
[The Logician’s ‘Form’ as used here is not to be conflated with ‘Logical Form’, a different and very useful concept.]
He doesn’t, because the rules of Logic say that what happens in his Mental-Space belongs to him. In fact it is him. The Logician recognizes himself, has modeled himself from just that very mix of elements that stand in counter-point to the abstraction he has defined as ‘Form’.
Mental-Space is not in his field-of-vision because it is one with his field-of-vision. It is what makes him who he is. Its elements are part of his organic contact lenses and without them he will not be able to see as he see’s.
To expand on Descartes: I am Thinking, therefore I am; I am what I am now Thinking.
The material can be expanded substantially if one were to go into the later evolution of Platonic Form and the Academic Philosopher’s love of ‘Universals’. But I think I’ve expressed all that is relevant.