Transcendental Realism is akin to traditional cosmologies, in which reality appears as a totality, systematically articulated in the Cosmos and stabilized in that systematicity as its own consistency. In these systems, truth is not adequacy, but structural coherence, proper to experience; rain, ritual, the calendar, gestures, and names are not separated by levels of reality, but integrated into the same form, which is the real.
Modernity breaks this integration, but Transcendental Realism does not seek to restore it in Romanticism; rather, it seeks to reconstitute the original structural principle, which understands the real as manifestation in experience.
This would happen naturally, since it is the way in which the real is organized in its phenomena, not in the way it is perceived; but it is this perception that has been affected by the development of Western philosophy, with its emphasis on Idealism.
This fragmentation is not accidental, but rather the result of basing this understanding on abstract positions, such as nature, which functionally partializes them, with three paradigmatic cases of the limitations of this projection. Heidegger is the last of these three—the other two are Kant and Hegel—as the culmination that diagnoses this uprooting when he denounces the loss of Being as the reification of the entity in its objectivity, forgetting meaning.
Heidegger’s proposal—to return to the question of Being—is lucid, but also incomplete and therefore insufficient, because Dasein opens up the horizon of the real, but does not understand it in its structure, which is what manifests itself as experience. There is no understanding in Heidegger of the real as a systematic totality, but only a formal opening to its possibility; he remains at the gesture, which is foundational, but does not intuit the order he demands, because he is still hostage to the university.
Heidegger—like Kant, Hegel, and all modern philosophers—is a professor of philosophy, and this conditions his cognition; it is like a Platonic curse on warrior kings, who exchange the throne for the vulgar toga of the middle class. There is no aristocracy that maintains its functionality beyond its first generation without becoming corrupted by softness; and philosophy, as the highest intellectual specialization of a class, does not escape this fate, as Heidegger shows.
The problem is one of ontological subtlety: for Heidegger, Dasein does not create Being, but without Dasein there is no Being as such; Being is not postulated as a thing or an idea, but as a structure that makes its manifestation possible. This is important and grandiose, concluding the Idealist tradition with Hegelian objectivism as meaningless; because without experience there is no Being, although experience does not produce it, but only reveals it in its understanding.
In a way, Dasein is the possibility of Being—which is then objective as Entity—but not its realization; and here Heidegger does not overcome the hermeneutical limitations of Idealism, which stem from its categorization of the real. This is only natural, since in 1927 quantum physics was still discussing the structural nature of reality in the face of Einstein’s skepticism, which in turn concluded classical physics (Newton), based on Galileo’s intuition, for a definitive systematization of reality as physical.
In this way, all classical approaches to metaphysics are presented as infra or extra positive phenomena, according to their determination of Being, but not in its possibility but in its very realization, emerging in the end as experience. This brings Dasein back to experience itself, as a property of Being—in its realization—as Being, no longer as an object; but without this implying subjectivity, rather a relative objectivity, because it is always objectively comprehensible.
What is important here is the epiphenomenal character of the real as human, proper to the phenomenon of the real; which is what gives consistency to everything (Cosmos), not as a substance distinct from its expression, but as this expression itself. This is the step that Heidegger does not take, but Lezama Lima does, explaining in his perplexity the experience of the real, which is the basis of this Erasmian Transcendental Realism, drawing on the epistemological resources of his tradition.
This is what the trichotomous tension of Transcendental Realism is all about, resolving the real in the trialectic realization; the gnoseological scandal that culminates in classical cosmologies in Christianity, before which Arius and Heidegger retreat.
This retreat is the distrust ad infinitum of the political convention as the false conflictuality of Being, which participates in the Father in his transcendence, but through its own immanence, in the sufficiency of its reality.
