What you describe is mereology — the analytical study of logical parts and the logical wholes they form. It is a sub-discipline of set theory within analytic philosophy. Like much of analytic philosophy, it is logic chopping speculations with little bearing on metaphysical realities. As a colleague of mine once put it about a mereological argument over a chair: “it does not matter what you call it or how you divide it up in your mind, the question is whether I can sit on it or not.” I agree, and it is one example of why I eschew the emptiness of analytic tradition and am firmly in the continental approach that deals with the realities we experience and let it tell us what is true, rather than analytic’s attempt to decide what it thinks should be true. One of Buddhism’s flaws is it has always been too analytic and not phenomenological.

So strange that you respond to this article of mine, and yet ignore everything in the article. In particular the link to this article: https://medium.com/p/ec8db0b45b9c