  Conceptual models as representations of real-world systems are based on
diverse techniques in various disciplines but lack a framework that provides
multidisciplinary ontological understanding of real-world phenomena.
Concurrently, systems complexity has intensified, leading to a rise in
developing models using different formalisms and diverse representations even
within a single domain. Conceptual models have become larger; languages tend to
acquire more features, and it is not unusual to use different modeling
languages for different components. This diversity has caused problems with
consistency between models and incompatibly with designed systems. Two main
solutions have been adopted over the last few years: (1) A currently dominant
technology-based solution tries to harmonize or unify models, e.g., unifies EER
and UML. This solution would solidify modeling achievements, reaping benefits
from huge investments over the last thirty years. (2) A less prevalent solution
is to pursuit deeper roots that reveal unifying modeling principles and
apparatuses. An example of the second method is a category theory-based
approach that utilizes the strengths of the graph and set theory, along with
other topological tools. This manuscript is a sequel in a research venture that
belongs to the second approach and uses a model called thinging machines (TMs)
founded on Stoic ontology and Lupascian logic. TM modeling contests the thesis
that there is no universal approach that covers all aspects of an application,
and the paper demonstrates that pursuing such universality is anything but a
dead-end method. This paper continues in this direction, with emphasis on TM
foundation (e.g., existence and subsistence of things) and exemplifies this
pursuit by proposing an alternative representation of set theory.
