How does Will to Will come to be thought from within the Appearance as Thought, Time, Space? Here we name a background consideration in the Methodos (μέθοδος). Referring to the wavering Fate of the text called Kant.
Κατηγορίεν means to accuse, to charge—thus to begin with not just any assertion, but one that is emphatic and accentuated. It is to say something to someone's face, to say that one is so and so and that this is one's situation. Applied to things and to beings in general, it is the kind of saying which says emphatically what a being properly is and how it is; κατηγορία is therefore anything said or sayable in this way. If the categories have their home in λόγος, then this means that in every assertion whatsoever of something about something, there is that exceptional saying wherein the being as it were is rightly indicted for being what it is. Aristotle sometimes also uses κατηγορία in the broad, attenuated sense of what is said in verbal transactions, what is simply asserted; or better (see Physics B I, 192b 17), the simple claim [An-spruch], that which one literally has given one's word to—the name, the word, and the relationship to the thing. What Aristotle calls "category" in the stated sense, however, is that saying which is involved in every assertion in a preeminent way (even when this is not expressed).
A forcibly-expressive saying, made prominent, “telling it like it is”. And yet what makes this graspable, and at the same time peculiar, is that this is what “is involved in every assertion in a preeminent way (even when this is not expressed).”
Categorizing is speech as such. It is all speech. Nothing absconding or deviating. Or, indeed, only nothing, the lack of expression. Because the text called Heidegger can no longer let the being of a world, of this or that human world, be the be all and end all, it is already thinking from the leap. From the presupposition that what belongs to all worlds, only belongs to all worlds. If the Categories were higher, more general, and speech lower, more general in the sense of being less special, less all embracing, less general in the sense of being more comprehensive, then, one would still seek a Synthetic a priori, something that was basic and without content. An assertion, however significant and pronounced, however “real” the “talk”, is no Truth. Truth is thought here as the lichtung, the orginary exhibiting, of what is as Da-sein.
This Da-sein as what appears before, in the categorizing, is not an entity in the sense of this or that being that goes out of existence, and sometimes in droves. Yet, this Da-sein is asserted. Thus the leap is presupposition. Everything is accidental, so far as it conditions the characteristics, or the nature, of this or that being. But that something appears before one, is not conditional on this or that accident. In the same way the Synthetic a priori is thought to the point of Time, Space, and Thought, the potentiality, the WIll to Will, of the categorizing, is thought as the same in all worlds.
Now what are space and time? Are they actual entities [wirkliche Wesen]? Are they only determinations or also relations of things, but still such as would belong to them even if they were not intuited? Or are they such that they belong only to the form of intuition, and therefore to the subjective constitution of our mind, without which these predicates could not be ascribed to any things at all? --Kant
The circle of the immediate intuition and the concept, which says exactly the same thing as the something as something, is put aside in the appearance of what stands before, what stands is the being. The assertion of the being is the ground of its being. All notion of causality is set aside, erkenntnis, cognition is set aside. All notion of knowing is set aside in the sense of knowing the essence. Knowing of causality means representing according to a reflection about what is happening. Knowing the essence, in the sense of universal, is an accident of the empirical situation. This is all obliterated in the wake of the reflections of Hobbes, Rousseau, and finally Kant. At first Hobbes considers selfishness the center of man, his nature. Rousseau says, to check this, we must check actual men, who are the result of accident. All is accident, of weather, of situation. When nature is set aside, reason, intellect, attempts to speak of equality. Intellect is set aside, for it too, must have experience, or it will say nothing. Then we go up to the forms, supposing them invulnerable to conditioning. Finally, free self-giving of imagination comes into view. But Kant never treats the uniformity of phenomena and logos.
So far we are not thinking logos, as we must to gather the methedos, in its moving path.