Rather than reply sequentially, permit me to briefly outline my  limited
views wrt the preceding  references to a limitless and inexhaustible realm.
H attempts to circumvent numerous traditional  problems by introducing a
fresh mind set delivered by a transfiguration of accepted language designed
to impress upon us the power of his novelty in a coherent manner. By
"necessarily" I meant that ordinarily language was inadequate for his
purposes. After all, language forms are developed daily to deal with new
circumstances. In a W'n sense, he is creating a new form of life.

I agree that seeking origins (from what, where) is inadequate because among
other grounds, it fails to relate to causation (origin is not cause) and
thus lacks sufficient explanatory power. Similarly explaining phenomenon in
terms of things because, aside from obvious intuition, there is no
sufficient, adequate ground for establishing the relationship between
premises (facts, axioms), derivational rules and the resulting conclusion
sets (consider Tarski). "What things are" presupposes a set of valuations.
Here I agree with H - it can't be done except by means of relations the
validity of which will always be open to valuations.

I submit that "what does being mean" is unavoidable from any perspective,
east, west... but I disagree that H's language  becomes "very transparent"
and
in particular  that his terms become, based on the foregoing grounds,
"precise, informative, surgical". I will return to this point.

James' provocative submissions deserve evaluation. I disagree along with
Nietzsche that Eastern thought has a "more sophisticated and coherent
tradition" and that the problem of being addressed by "endless convoluted
speculation" is somehow circumvented by simply and magically determining
that 'something either is or isn't". I have danced with the "wild" ones in
meditation and have practiced the ultimate" meditation in motion" (martial
arts) for many years and have yet to experience "either/or". Quite simply,
we are not designed to work that way. We do not begin and end with ourselves
because
even if there were a self, it would be an interpretation. I became convinced
upon accepting the Humean challenge, namely finding the self. Try it and see
whether you find a "self" or innumerable states of consciousness, the veil
of Maya. It's no wonder many Easterns view the self is an illusion. In any
event, what state of consciousness qualifies as an "is"?. Maybe Om is just
as
many claim, a residual noise based on our physiology. And when/how exactly
do you know that "any" state is "yourself". I submit that you don't and that
the answer is blowin in the wind.

The notion of the equivalence of "logical construction" and the K'n
thing-in-itself sounds like a misreading and makes no sense. How does one
tie these two concepts together in any consistent acceptable way. And no one
has submitted  the impossible notion that language "is the thing itself"
.
As for  mind games, N postulates that we are comprised of sub-selves
(units of power)  that compete with one another to gain access to
consciousness (echoes of Leibniz' monad, Schopenhauer's and Freud's
unconscious). Here he foresaw the advances in psych/physiology. Awareness is
a reduction like mp3. What comes to consciousness is a compressed version
after elimination. (interesting lit relating to all 11 senses).

Where I differ from the H is the emphasis on the power of and the obligation
imposed on the "self". A mistake that Sartre corrected prior to his death.
Perhaps
god manifests himself in the unending mysterious process (Whitehead).

To return briefly, my original debatable psychoanalytic guess (insight) was
that the impetus for H's project was his incredulous confrontation with the
mysterious "thing". I don't mean to suggest anything like Adler's
inferiority compensation but rather a Nietzschean confrontation with life
from
a position of strength.

Time to go outfor dinner. I tend to go stream so forgive any rambling which
I don't have
time to correct. I intended to include Goedel, Derrida, Popper but that's
another venture.

Incidentally I read Iain Thomson's "Can I Die? Derrida on Heidegger on
 Death" yesterday and recommend it highly.

As an aside, I upgraded my German language skills thru the Goethe Institute
and am rereading Nietzsche in the original. I am surprised to confront a
more light-footed, funny fellow.

Regards, Richard