<b>Metaphysics of the reliable</b>Logical-philosophical experience of formal hermeneutics

- What is the purpose of this book?- To try to reflect on the foundations, the essence of our thinking. But not as an essence expressing the pre-reasoning of contemporary metaphysics: "I" - the "unity" of existence on which the whole culture - from religion to science - stands. But as the essence that makes sense of all metaphysics, that gives everything a meaningful understanding.- So, the book tries to become the understanding of everything understood. What will make it understand itself?- Of course, in order to see the meaning of some preconceptions, it is necessary to confess others. To reveal one metaphysical structure one must be in the other, elusive because the medium cannot be its own subject - the "speaking" can never be the "said". But on top of that, for the book to be understood, the elusive metaphysics has to be the same metaphysics that we are interpreting. This supra-objective defines the structure of the book and the way it argues.It reinterprets the most deeply rooted metaphysical concepts of our tradition: sign, meaning, being, form, memory, number, reality, truth, "this", "me" ...- But what is there to talk about a "reinterpretation" of these categories, a thousand times over, whether this book falls into a tautology of old quotations?- The thing is that the meaning of metaphysical categories and indeed of everything else, is in my view the already mentioned slipping away of metaphysics from its own consideration, the slipping away of metaphysical content from a tautological or paradoxical movement in a hermeneutical circle. The sense of this eluding from the contentlessness of tautologies is the source of all that is meaningful. But how to conceive this "source" when it is the reflexive elimination of the meaningful content? - One cannot "conceptualize" it but it can be demonstrated and materialized in the reflections of my book, which are a complex structure of mutually reflective hermeneutic circles, from the first paragraph to the entire three-part structure of the book. This book does not "tell about something", this book demonstrates "how...". Therefore, in order to understand it, it must be read from beginning to end.As it can be guessed the essence of understanding, a source of all that is significant, a proposition of meaning, is thought by me in the hermeneutic circle, not the circle found in the texts of our culture but its implementation in the demonstration of "reading these texts". It is this last stage of a reflexive demonstration of an old metaphysics that gives rise to a "reinterpretation" of its categories.Judge for yourself what has come out of this.