I am currently reading Heidegger's An Introduction to Metaphysics. Far from being an introduction, this is one of the hardest books I have ever read. I am attracted to it from the standpoint of thinking about the relationship between aesthetics and metaphysics. My working hypothesis is that aesthetics has been vastly under-related in its importance to philosophy and to the central problems of philosophy. Heidegger, it seems to me, is onto something with regards to this topic. Heidegger seeks for the roots of philosophy in the pre-Socratic philosophers and, in particular, in Heraclitus and Parmenides. The question at issue is "what is being?" Heraclitus understands being in terms of "logos." And of course Heidegger has his own interpretation of "logos" via Heraclitus and Parmenides. For Heidegger, logos is a gathering and togetherness (134). It is also a gathering and togetherness that shines. Being disclosed itself to the Greeks as physis which Heidegger describes in this way "the realm of emerging and abiding is intrinsically at the same time a shining appearing" as he identifies the root of physis with phainesthai: "Phyein, self-sufficient emergence, is phainesthai, to flare up, to show itself, to appear." (101) So this unity this appearing is a shining forth which is also a collection. Further, the gathering we are talking about is not just a heaping but a unity of things that conflict: "It does not let them fall into haphazard dispersion. In thus maintaining a bond, the logos has the character of permeating power, of physis." (134) There is a uniting of oppositions that also maintains their tension.
This I propose is the root also of aesthetic experience. To experience something aesthetically is to experience it as something that shines (metaphorically) due to emergence of a unity that pulls together tensions and opposites. Here is one possible way to interpret this: Being is not just a bare "is" of identity or predication or even existence but something more like Danto's "is" of artistic identification. Being happens when the essentiality of something shines forth for us as a gathering that overcoming opposition. When this happens we have "aura": i.e. the intensification of experience associated with the various aesthetic terms, most significantly "beauty." This is, of course, beyond the dichotomy of subjective/objective.
Heidegger connects all of this interestingly with the nature of man himself: "We do not learn who man is by learned definitions; we learn it only when man contends with the essent, striving to bring it into its being, i.e. into limit and form, that is to say when he projects something new (not yet present), when he creates original poetry, when he builds poetically." (144) If that is right then it follows that finding out who man is would be only possible through looking at his artistic creative activity.