Blind and Perverted ontologies

So we are going beyond the Kantian categories to a new level of the a priori synthesis, where we are talking not about the a priori synthesis of things in spacetime disposed according to categories, but the a priori synthesis of dasein the projector of the things see not as unity and totality but as that which gives rise to unity and totality, a wholeness prior to unity and totality. Unity will turn out to be present-at-and and Totality will turn out to be understood by circumspective concern as ready-to-hand. But the wholeness of Dasein goes beyond the modalities of Being that it supports. So this is expressed as the a priori conditions not just of objects of experience but of the sciences themselves. Sciences that discover that their foundations are different than they expected. Science that undergo revolutions and have discontinuous traditions. These sciences already have a pre-ontological understanding of Being. But without carrying the meaning of Being these sciences and their ontologies remain naive. And that in most part is because they are accepting the dualism between Subject and Object. In our clarification we need to get to what is before that dualism to what is the a priori synthesis of the projection situation out of which subjectivity and objectivity arise. He says that without this clarification our ontology remains blind and perverted. The dualism prevents us from seeing the situation in which there is a prior synthesis that the duality between subject and objects comes out of. But this is perverse to the extent that it separates us from ourselves as the projector of both Subject and Object.

Blindness and Perversion are strong words but this is exactly what happens when the Meta-system is eclipsed by emphasis on the System alone. In our society there is a suppression of the meta-system as ecosystem, as environment and that is why we have difficulty living in harmony with these situations, contexts, milieu of life within our lifeworld.