Actually this is exactly what I was trying to avoid, the movement from one 'object' that occupies one mental event to another 'object' that was not 'within' the previous mental event, but is now is.Sounds like you are looking for something "eternal" out there. Bad luck, you won't find it.
My main confusion is this notion of an 'object'. What counts as something 'singular' in this sense? Something that is utterly simple? Devoid of multiple parts and structured complexity? Would a single unextended point of 'redness' count? But if it was devoid of extension, how could it have a quality like redness, since that seems to require space and extension to my mind (am I wrong here?).
However, if it is extended, if it does have a structured shape, what makes it count as 'one'? Do we just mean something 'marked off' by a single concept? Like a cup or a chair? If that is the case, can't we arbitrarily make the conceptual division wherever we please? Perhaps I focus on the chair as a whole, or maybe just a single leg.
Maybe it is a waste of time to bounce around from concept to concept trying to make sense of this if I lack the meditative experience of such single pointedness, but it does seem like some kind of continuity of awareness from one moment to the next, from one 'object-cognition' to the next, is presupposed if I am even becoming confused about this point (since I am already talking about 'this and that', 'before and after', relating things to one another).
How can the nature of conventional reality consist purely of relations, and reality itself consist purely of mental events, if a mental event can only consist of a singular, self-contained 'object-cognition' at any given moment? Doesn't that object itself, insofar as I conceptually grasp it, have to be composed of 'relations' and already be 'multiple' in some sense (again, sorry for the term since it often implies discrete units rather than mere a 'extension of relations')?