What makes Being a legit philosophical category is the fact that what is known as the transition from myth to logos was a radical failure cause the keenest logic tool, Anaximander's ápeiron, was not given the crown I defend it deserved.
It is easy to consent that the real issue is not Being but Perception, yet, how many philosophers and non-ones drew and are drawing the right sequel from that, beginning with George Berkeley who, on one hand, correctly stated “Esse est percipi” but, on the other, kept His grip on the idea of God ?
So, there cannot be any ground argument for Being like for any other Common Sense born concept allegedly fit for helping with the Inclusive Explanation Human Thought is bound to stalk.
The insufficiency of what I called ALT, the Abstractest Layer of Thought, is why --since the wreck of Milesian Logic on the rocks of Anaximenes' Air-- we lost our abstractest marbles and generated philosophies à gogo.
Thank so much for your very intelligent suspect and question, Jean !
I hope my answer might help with or without more stuff from my keyboard as sparse on the Web under one or the other of my two identities: this one, mik palos (mainly on Yahoo Answers) and the eldest, MilValos, on Facebook Presocratici Fan Club. One sample to finish with: https://beta.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140914134612AA3g51g .
[mkp th18my17 02a45]