The way I see this is that the reification of Spirit is criticized by Heidegger, but simply replaced with the reification of “the origin”, as “being”, and “being” has already been explain to be an Ideal.
Nothing remains of the compromised eternal values except confidence in the sanctity of being, whose essence is prior to everything thingly.
This is shown to actually subjectify being, while at the same time alienating the material thing.
Heidegger is at once hostile towards things and anti-functional. At no price is being supposed to be a thing and yet, as the metaphor indicates over and over again, the “soil”, something solid.24 Therein becomes apparent, that subjectivization and reification do not merely diverge, but are correlates.
The result is that “activity” is the property of the subject, while the object is “something dead”. But matter without dynamics is “absolute concreity, mediated through abstraction”. So there is a polarity between the two, “entirely abstract and entirely concrete”, while the source of activity is left as Kant described, “the spontaneous subject, the pure apperception”, the “living I”.
The reduction of the object to mere material, which precedes all subjective synthesis as its necessary condition, sucks its own dynamic out of it; it is immobilized as something disqualified, robbed of whatever would allow movement to be predicated.
As I understand it, the consequence is that the dualism which was intended to be reconciled, is actually enhanced. The subject/object, internal/external, division was supposed to be reconciled by Heidegger, through an appeal to “the origin”, but the origin is inaccessible, and the appeal is subjective, as an activity of the living I. So the living I acts as a mediation between the entirely abstract, and the entirely concrete, thereby furthering the division between them.
Their reconciliation however is projected onto the irretrievable origin and thereby the dualism itself, against which the whole was conceived, is hardened contrary to the reconciling impulse. The dirge over the forgetfulness of being is the sabotage of reconciliation; the mythic impenetrable history of being, in which hope still clings, denies this. Its fatality is to be broken through as the context of deception.
So Heidegger criticizes reification but “the origin” is itself a reification. The conception of the unity of subject and object was based in the assumption of the origin. But this presentation is itself an untruth. So the result is the opposite of what was intended, instead of unity, the gap of separation is widen. The subject is separated from the object through that deception, rather than unified.
The lesson I’m seeing, is that there is a natural unity between subject and object. However, there is also a natural division between the subject and the object as the unity is imperfect. (The object in this case being the unity of subjects as the state, or society). Since the nature of this unity, its source and force, is unknown and incomprehensible to us, attempts to describe it, or justify its reality, such as in “Spirit”, or “the origin”, are subjective, and are generally misguided and false. The result is that such subjective attempts increase the force of subjectivity, creating an imbalance in the unity, which divides and enhances the separation between subject and object.