To me the transmutation of verbs into abstract nouns and gerunds and Platonistically inspired existential sentential templates is so patently ludicrous when viewed from a semantic, ontological or philosophical point of view, that I experience great difficulty in summoning up the mental energy even to discuss them in a serious manner. The emergence of some whimpering transcendentalist taking a short break from comporting himself along the yellow-brick road towards death to claim that there are actual entiatic nominata which correspond to these abstract referenda just makes me yawn.

     If it weren't for the philosophical damage that they do, one might even welcome these illogicalities  as heaven-sent, comedic routines, philosophical pantomime-parts-of-speech sent as a knockabout intermezzi in the Heideggerian opéra bouffe, to brighten up the boredom of interminably meaningless transcendentalist tracts and pseudo-psychological drivel

     My critique is the general one of an increasing number of philosophers and scientists, but that  is not to say that I don't recognise the usefulness of many hypostatisations in natural language and in ordinary communication at street level.  Away from the university or philosophical discussion I use them myself in this way all the time, and you will find my writings peppered with metaphor, for they are so damn difficult and handy as communicative short-cuts to avoid in natural language.

    And yes, once in a while its good to relax.  It's good fun to let one's analytical hair down and visit the down-market transcendentalist theme park -  The Land of Let's Pretend, which is engendered by such crude reification wherein the metaphysical Munchkins abide, and its fun to go along for the ride on the transcendentalist roller-coaster with the screaming Heideggerians in their with their red noses and kiss-me-quick hats, holding tight to some candy-floss of metaphysical nonsense and be a kid again.