Basically, there is a sense in which ‘Western metaphysics’ is technology or techne. Heidegger perhaps saw that in a certain kind of way, which explains some of the affinities and parallels with ‘Eastern thought’, that he himself began to broach (“Letter to a Japanese Friend”, etc). But he did add, that the West couldn’t simply ‘turn Japanese’; that there was a specifically Western destiny, and development.
I can see why he would think that, and there’s easily various levels on which he can be considered to be correct. But I do wonder, much more recently, whether his assumption is merely the arbitrary root of the movement of Western exceptionalism? Both the founding inauguration and identification enabling the geographic to produce such an allegedly distinct cultural emergence.
Because, it would be quite easy to look at it all in a different way; the West, as a mere movement of implementations, implementations of ideas belonging to Oriental origination, thus as stages of oriental continuity; or as Hegel might have put it, of the spirit of the East.
I could deconstruct all of that, of course, but to do it effectively and thoroughly, Western cultural- philosophical resources are insufficient.
Of course, Heidegger must’ve had subconscious premonitions of Indus Valley Civilisation precedence! He was able to intuit, but without any form of understanding, the emergence of my ‘General Conceptual Holography’, and its continuation of that precedence! Of that there can be no doubt!
His publication, of “Letter to a Japanese Friend”, was a tactic of confrontation through the deliberate deferral of slight, but significant, misdirection. This was Heidegger’s gesture of philosophical reconnaissance, attempting to establish Occidental opposition further east from the Indus Valley, both as a kind of lassooing strategy, and due to his lack of the necessary conceptual resources required to attack the contemporary philosophical formations originating from Indus Valley culture!
Of this simplistic ruse, despite the obligatory immersal in yogic distances, I was well aware! Not wishing to be caught up in contingency actions involving tiresome engagements with the turgid, ontological forces under Heidegger’s command, I withdrew whatever few battalions of ancillary attention had been devoted to, what was after all, merely a German farmer’s peculiar obsession, in order to continue with developments more profoundly significant than Bavarian ‘Being’! Without neglecting it all together, however, as such deep neglect would merely empower it into a monstrosity of festering facticity!