Being as Metaphysics of the Law of Objects as throwing a bridge to the form as genetic life (Expressionism of a solid thought)
It is so that we return to our thinking of the Heidegger text as Husserl. Certainly, one should not understanding this thinking as a metaphysics of objects, because the round of the object in the understanding or substance is cast into view as the form. Thus, one is strictly warned against thinking this in any connection to analytic thought or the “object oriented” school and the like. Basically, this thinking is much more like the thinking of Dugin. We ashew or abjure any claim to being instructive and so abjure the need to contest the claim that one has merely been “expressive” or such-like. It doesn’t concern us that those unwilling to think should not understand this living thinking. True, this living thinking still moves in the infinity of the awareness of the claim of truth on it. But, this infinity is an infinity which is like the essencing of the essence, such that what stands equidistant to all ages is no timelessness of the mind of god, but this infinity of the unthought. In another sense this means that if an infinity has come before, it can not be that all has already been, since the possibility is infinite and can not be exhausted in any infinity. However, this thinking is form, thus involved in genetic circle, and not a dogma or rule corresponding to a superstition about the case with beings.
The Heidegger text is a text of a study of the laws of objects so far as it is western. This is in keeping with our thinking which understands Heidegger in terms of Husserl. SO far as Husserl remains with philosophy, then, so far does Heidegger. Substance of the “thing” is visible according to Husserl or the final philosophy, which is Cartesian. Every form is profoundly indifferent to being a form under this thinking. Thus, when reason is thought as something added on, and beyond mere discussion, it is a form in which the Heidegger text thinks the final Greeks, or Plato moving towards Aristotle. Being is but a form. It is true, then, it is factizitat, it is subject matter, it is form.
In the current religion what stands out is the obvious tendency to regard the fact as directive. Whoever notices the power of technology as fact says as much as that it ought to be so. Observation is regarded as giving what must be out of sheer observation. All observation falls back into a telling of what is to be by saying what is. However, to merely want never presents itself as sufficient to say what is.
Death in the Heidegger text is a specific form of the phronesis or Socrates. And this is the form of moral conscience as what gives time. This form Heidegger finds in his form of Da-sein. Ergo, it is clear that though the movement towards the mere colors of the thing, towards the “fact” which is no longer phenomena as it was since the dawn of metaphysics, has settled into being as form. But, the form is not what is substantive. 2 + 2 has the substance which stands with the formulation 3 + 1. Such and such a piece of white pavement has the same form as some other ashen piece of sidewalk. This coming forth of the forms out of substance is fluid in its essencing under Husserl’s thinking. Likewise, it is not that in thinking Plato’s animal of speech as a special moment of reason prior to Reason, that the form is untrue to Plato as Plato and thus false. Rather, it is this history that first was the basis that allowed the form to endow man with its look.
So far as a um-earth and an um-welt is bringing the horizon of humans into the position of the living forms it forms being, as the umbegrieffen, not as a piece of the understanding held in speech, but as the living texture of the form. Thus, we reach a point in our thinking where we can not be said to do philosophy of the law of the object, but we do not come to being as is supposed to be granted by the Heidegger text.