Errr… you speak like you’re overly familiar with the Ship of Theseus thought experiment, and then you reel off “The ship of theseusness of the ship of Theseus” like it’s a simple thing. Do you actually understand the issue with it, or are you just ignoring/forgetting it/pushing it aside?
It was Heraclitus who so wisely and astutely said “You can never step into the same river; for new waters are always flowing on you. No man ever steps into the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he is not the same man.” and yet you have no issue speaking of oceans like clearly and precisely identifiable things in spite of their constant changing and the profound ambiguity of where a river ends and an ocean starts.
Your “solution” is simply to appeal to essence - a throwback to pre-Existentialism. Concretely it’s obvious that identity is especially dubious in cases like the aforementioned, and it’s only through the generalisation of abstraction that you can hope to wave your hands at some kind of identity, template and permanence. If you observe from really far away, the ocean/land divide appears distinct - so just stand far enough back from anything and then even things like identity can be clear, right? Stand really far back and Platonic forms can exist!
The aversion to examination and precision… it’s one way of living your life - as the proverbial armchair philosopher.
Is it impossible to name objects as an illusion? What about illusions? A small oversight from someone standing so far away from reality, perhaps. “Stand at the right distance and any illusion can seem real” seems to be your whole point…
Continuity solves as discrete identity? Don’t you mean it’s the exact opposite? It’s possible to think of the ocean as a discrete identity, therefore identity has no issue…
Are you going to ignore the variation in range or size of these “sweet spots” of perception, depending on what you’re identifying? For some things this range is huge - clearly identiable things are identifiable from close to far away e.g. trees, cars, human bodies. Some things are only clearly identifiable from really far away like oceans, either where you’re so far from any rivers leading into it that you can’t see he issue of where it starts, or you’re so far above that these rivers become too hard to make out, or if you look so quickly to one or take a snapshot so it appears like it is not constantly changing. Some things are only “identifiable” from so far away conceptually, into the generalisation of templates; and even at this level of abstraction they aren’t that clearly definable.
The birth of identity is in the ability to ignore contradictory evidence. It’s in the opposite of clear and careful observation, critique and precision.
There you go: identity is the child of ignorance.
Pray to the god of willful blindness and even the most vague identities can exist, and the most abstract realms of templates are your guiding lights.
I think this is where you want to be.