since they themselves feed on the confusion prevailing over the distinction between beings and Being. . Is there any rescue? Rescue comes when and only when danger is. Danger is when Being itself advances to its farthest extreme, and when the oblivion that issues from Being itself undergoes reversal. But what if Being in its essence needs to use [braucht] the essence of man? If the essence of man consists in thinking the truth of Being? Then thinking must poetize on the riddle of Being. It brings the dawn of thought into the neighborhood of what is for thinking.


Logos (Heraclitus, Fragment B 50)

The path most needed for our thinking stretches far ahead. It leads to that simple matter which, under the name AOY0C;, remains for thinking. Yet there are only a few signs to point out the way. By means of free reflection along the guidelines of a saying of Heraclitus (B 50), the following essay attempts to take a few steps along that path. Perhaps they can carry us to the point where at least this one saying will speak to us in a more question-worthy way:

One among the virtually identical translations reads:
When you have listened not to me but to the Meaning, it is wise within the same Meaning to say: One is AlL (Snell)

The saying speaks of QKOUelV, hearing and having heard, of 0lloAoyeiv, to say the same, of Acvoc, what is said and the saying, of eyw, the thinker himself as Aeywv, the one who is talking. Heraclitus here considers a hearing and a saying. He expresses what the AoyoC; says: "Ev IIdvTO, all is One. The saying of Heraclitus seems comprehensible in every respect. Nevertheless; everything about it is worthy of question. Most question-worthy is what is most self-evident, namely, our presupposition that whatever Heraclitus says ought to 58 59

just as early and even more originally-and therefore already in the previously cited meaning-it means what our similarly sounding legen means: to lay down and lay before. forgetting to ~ meditate on the essential origin of reason and to let itself into its advent? What can logic. it perseveres in the same neglect. in the sense of collecting and bringing together. Picking and gleaning are followed by the bringing together of the fruit. as necessity in thought. So long as we persist in the usual appearances we are inclined to take this bringing together as the gathering itself or even its termination. Aexo<. AeyelV as laying. as Verbum. predom60 inately if not exclusively. This demand was probably never met even for Heraclitus' contemporaries. saying and talking. we need to reflect on what actually lies in AeYelVas laying. The safekeeping that brings something in has already determined the first steps of the gathering and arranged everything that follows. although it is indeed the predominant sort. In legen a "bringing together" prevails. AOYO<: means AeyelVas a saying aloud. in deference to this preponderant and customary meaning of Aeyelv. remains but one sort of gathering. which assumes multiple forms. do if we never begin to pay heed to the Aoyo<. Yet what would become of a vintage [eine Lese] which has not been gathered with an eye to the fundamental matter of its being sheltered? The sheltering [Bergen] comes first in the essential formation of the vintage. Must we therefore. namely. (The old word dAeyw (d copulativum). To gathering belongs a collecting which brings under shelter. Even less is it the conclusion of the gathering. to lay. What does Aeyelv mean? is Everyone familiar with the language knows that Aeynv means talking and saying. the bringing under shelter follows the collecting. the Latin legere understood as lesen. should be recalled here: something "lies upon me. it becomes clear that in order to observe the riddle as a riddle we must clarify before all else what AOyO<. but rather in the very matter thought. simply toss the genuine meaning of the word.and follow its primordial essence? What AOYO<. is the resting place. until finally everything is accommodated in bins and storage rooms. Yet what can reason do when. accommodation is in turn gov. coming last. That "something extra" which makes gathering more than a jumbling together that snatches things up is not something only added afterward. Accommodation governs the sheltering. That done. the sheltering does not secure just any thing that hap61 .we gather from Aeyelv. to the winds? Dare we ever do such a thing? Or is it not finally time to engage ourselves with a question which probably decides many things? The question asks: How does the proper sense of AeyelV. say.•'/ emed by safekeeping. in the sense of bringing-together-into-Iying-before. come to mean saying and talking? In order to find the foothold for an answer.) All the same it remains incontestable that AeYeIV means. However. to lay is at the same time to place one thing beside another. To lay means to bring to lie. If we are blind to everything but the sequence of steps. The middle voice. To lay is to gather [lesen]. We will get closer to these riddles ifwe step back before them.a place of ambush [or a place for lying in wait] where someis thing is laid away and deposited. along with the irrational and the antirational all on the same level. Who would want to deny that in the language of the Greeks from early on Aeyelv means to talk. we would correspond sooner to his thinking if we conceded that several riddles remain.EARLY GREEK THINKING Logos (Heraclitus. nor only for the ancients. This gives rise to the illusion that preservation and safekeeping have nothing to do with gathering. In the meantime. Aeyeo8m. as cosmic law.of Heraclitus has been interpreted in various ways: as Ratio. archaic after Aeschylus and Pindar. Again and again a call rings out for reason to be the standard for deeds and omissions.. The lesen better known to us. Aeverv properly means the laying-down and laying-before which gathers itself and others. AOXO<." it oppresses and troubles me. to lay them together. as meaning and as reason. Aeyelv mean. The gleaning at harvest time gathers fruit from the soil. the reading of something written. means to lay oneself down in the gathering of rest. Fragment B 50) become immediately obvious to our contemporary everyday understanding. and Xevouevov as that which is said. The gathering of the vintage involves picking grapes from the vine. as the logical. or tell? However. then the collecting follows the picking and gleaning. and Since antiquity the Aoyo<. But gathering is more than mere amassing. Thus. AOYIKrJ (ernorrjun) of any sort. neither for the first time with us.

It is proper to every gathering that the gatherers assemble to coordinate their work to the sheltering. The most important aspect of the sheltering in the essential formation of the vintage is the sorting (in Alemanic [the southwestern German dialect]: the fore-gathering [Var-lese]) which determines the selection. Every laying is of itself gathering. Laying is the letting-lie-before-which is gathered into itself-of that which comes together into presence. and supposedly the same. What sort of protection is this? What lies together before us is stored. in that it lets things lie together before us. To lay. By letting things lie together before us. as Aeyelv. Fragment B 50) \ pens along: the gathering which properly begins with the sheltering. laying. comes to presence. Aeyelv. (In the Alemanic dialect legi means a weir or dam which lies ahead in the river. However. This original coordination govems their collective gathering. lesen [to gather] thought in this way does not simply stand near legen [to lay]. but only in order to deposit the essence of saying and talking at the outset under the! governance of laying proper." We have not busied ourselves in the foregoing with the transformation of word meanings. to let lie. the Kelo8m of ilnoxefuevov. to lay. However. laid in unconcealment. Because AeyelV. and-gathered together with that end in view-first begin to gather. Saying and talking occur essentially as the letting-lietogether-before of everything which. Rather. simply tries to let what of itself lies together here before us. the gathering appropriate to such a laying is determined in advance by safekeeping. unfolds itself early and in a manner ruling everything unconcealed as saying and talking. would then mean to concern ourselves no longer with what is laid down and lies before us-to ignore it. against the water's current. gathering is already included in laying. the selection is determined by whatever within the crop to be sorted shows itself as to-be-selected [Erlesene]. and the accommodation of the vintage. Laying as letting-lie-together-before .[beisammen-varliegen-Lassen] is concerned with retaining whatever is laid down as lying before us. refers to the earliest and most consequential decision concerning the essence oflanguage. the lying before for-itself of what is in this fashion deposited. a protection in which it remains laid down. Nor does the former simply accompany the latter. Rather. i. as what lies before. The sequence of steps in the gathering act does not coincide with the order of those far-reaching. Every gathering is already a laying. The saying and talking of mortals comes to pass from early on as Aeyelv. into its protection. concerns itself solely with the safety of that which lies before us in unconcealment. Aeyeni as gathering and assembling remains implied.) The Aeyelv or laying now to be thought has in advance relinquished all claims-claims never even known to it-to be that which for the first time brings whatever lies before us into its position [Lage]. Aeverv is to lay.e. by its letting-lie-togetherbefore means just this. "to say. Then what does "to lay" mean? Laying brings to lie. to lay. i. fundamental traits in which the essence of the vintage [die Lese] consists. the vintage. That Aeyelv is a laying wherein saying and talking articulate their essence. The question arises: How does the proper meaning of Aeyelv. Why not? Because what we have been thinking about in no way tells us that this word Aeyelv advanced from the one meaning. Laying.e. for it makes us realize that we can no longer raise the question in such a manner. The Kelo8m. For its part. which lets things lie together before us. laid away. The original Myelv. Where did it come from? This question is as weighty. "to lay. is nothing more and nothing less than the presencing of that which lies before us into unconcealment. the bringing under shelter. Aeyelv as laying lets itself be overpowered by the predominant sense. All too readily we take this "letting" in the sense of omitting or letting go. is itself from the start a selection [Auslese] which requires sheltering. as the other question: How fur does this characterization of the essence of language from laying ex63 62 . attain the signification of saying and talking? The foregoing reflection already contains the answer. that whatever lies before us involves us and therefore concerns us. laying. Aeyelv undertakes to secure what lies before us in unconcealment. to bring to lie. The gathering [die Lese] requires and demands this assembly." to the other. we have stumbled upon an event whose immensity still lies concealed in its long unnoticed simplicity. secured and deposited in unconcealment.EARLY GREEK THINKING Logos (Heraclitus. arranging everything involved in the bringing together. and that means sheltered in unconcealment. In this Aeyelv of UnOKelpeVOV.

the ringing ofplucked strings. produced a curious state of affairs. Human thought was never astonished by this event. as the tools of sensation. i. Were our hearing primarily and always only this picking up and transmitting of sounds. as gathered and laid before us. then what is hearing? As Aeyelv. precisely this belongs to proper hearing: that man can hear wrongly insofar as he does not catch what is essential.e. and is determined according to the lyingbefore of what is present as the letting-lie-together-before. To say is Aeyelv.then neither can the hearing which corresponds to it occur as a reverberation meeting the ear and getting picked up. We have ears. We call this the Being of beings. like the letting-He-before that gathers. the noises 65 . conjoined by several 64 other processes. nor are they at all capable of determining this realm in its primary characteristics." But "ear" does not here mean the acoustical sense apparatus. the essential speaking of language. which nevertheless concerns everyone directly. perhaps only a little can be said concerning proper hearing. the result would be that the reverberation would go in one ear and out the other. But they do not genuinely reach into the realm of the primordial. Hearing is primarily gathered hearkening. now sloughs off everything facile. and-as if nothing at all had occurred there-that speaking accordingly appeared as Aeyelv. Expression and signification have long been accepted as manifestations which indubitably betray some characteristics of language. We do not hear because we have ears. everything is made to stand on its head. Saying is a letting-lie-together-before which gathers and is gathered. We hear when we are "all ears. We wrongly think that the activation of the body's audio equipment is hearing proper. § 7b). saying receives its essential form from the unconcealment of that which lies together before us. That saying as laying ruled unnoticed and from early on. the rumbling of motors. But the addressed is itself that which lies before us. Hearing is actually this gathering of oneself which composes itself on hearing the pronouncement and its claim. the rustling of woods. In contrast to this. But the unconcealing of the concealed into unconcealment is the very presencing of what is present. Thus. The anatomically and physiologically identifiable ears. For. in the sense of hearkening. Being and Time. If sayingis not characterized by vocalization. What is heard comes to presence in hearkening. One can demonstrate that periodic oscillations in air pressure of a certain frequency are experienced as tones. If the ears do not belong directly to proper hearing./' bodies are equipped with ears. But then hearing in the sense of hearkening and heeding is supposed to be a transposition of hearing proper into the realm of the spiritual [das Geistige]. sounds. Fragment B 50) j tend? The question reaches into the uttermost of the possible essential origins oflanguage. Such apprehending can neither be anatomically established nor physiologically demonstrated. It names the inexhaustible mystery that the speaking of language comes to pass from the unconcealment of what is present. the gurgling of fountains.. if well thought. because we hear. Will thinking finally learn to catch a glimpse of what it means that Aristotle could characterize Aeyelv as drtorpufveodrn?The AOYOC. If such is the essence of speaking. Thus. and tones. our. So long as we think of hearing along the lines of acoustical science. From such kinds of determinations concerning what is heard. nor did it discern in it a mystery which concealed an essential dispensation of Being to men. but rather of paying thoughtful attention to simple things. essential determination oflanguage. nor in any way grasped as a biological process at work within the organism-although apprehension lives only so long as it is embodied. and vacuous. a dispensation perhaps reserved for that historical moment which would not only devastate man from top to bottom but send his very essence reeling. speaking is not characterized as a reverberation which expresses meaning.EARLY GREEK THINKING Logos (Heraclitus. not even if we take this solely as an apprehending of noises. This sentence. is determined neither by vocalization (qxovri) nor by signifying (onpcfveiv). In the domain of scientific research one can establish many useful findings. itself brings by that which appears and comes forward in its lying before us to appearance-to its luminous self-showing(cf. an investigation can be launched which eventually only specialists in the physiology of the senses can conduct. That happens in fact when we are not gathered to what is addressed. trite. as sounds troubling the auditory sense and being transmitted. never bring about a hearing. then hearing and the ears are in a special situation. Mortals hear the thunder of the heavens. Here it is not so much a matter for research. AeyelV as laying.

The saying begins: OUK EPOU.named without qualification: <> Aoyoe. then ooqxfvcomes to o pass.. It lays one and the Same in one. One translates ooqxiv correctly as 67 >- v/ .e.is the Laying that gathers [die lesende Lege]. however. then. you are not to heed the vocalization of his talk.? 66 The only way to decide is to consider what Heraclitus himself says in the fragment cited. in this way we never succeed in having genuinely heard anything at all. gathered together and lying before us." i. AoyoC. when such hearing occurs? When there is such proper hearing there is opOAOyeiV. "When you have listened. not to this one who is talking. Heraclitus begins the saying with a rejection of hearing as nothing but the passion of the ears. But when does hearing succeed? We have heard [gehort] when we belong to [gehoren] the matter addressed. OUK EJ. but rather .occurs essentially as the pure laying which gathers and assembles. It lays one as the Same. At the same time. i. This exceptional laying is the Aeyelv which comes to pass as the Aoyoe. The way of proper hearing is determined by the Advoc. Therefore. only to pass it by once again." What happens. it itself. but rather when you maintain yourselves in hearkening attunement [Gehoren]. OUKEPOU dAAa .EARLY GREEK THINKING Logos (Heraclitus. as the expression of a speaker. Such AeyelV is opOAOyeiV: ne as the Same.lOAOyeiV. the opov. prohibiting "Not . is all this no more than an arbitrary interpretation and an all-too-alien translation with respect to the usual understanding which takes Aoyoe. But this rejection is founded on a reference to proper hearing. Rather. and it may remain so for a long time-calling Aoym. To what? 'AAAa TOU Adyou.. the Laying: the pure letting-lie-together-before of that which of itself comes to lie before us. If there is to be proper hearing.e. which indeed lies there by virtue of a laying which concerns everything that lies together before us of itself.lOU dAAa TOUAovou dKOUaaVTaC. However.lOV.Therefore this hearing v is itself a AeyelV. Not to me should you listen (as though gaping). as OJ.e. i. to what Heraclitus named and thought in the name 0 Adyoe. the proper hearing of mortals is in a certain way the Same as the Advoc. It is not the same as the AdyoC. we are not yet even listening at all.lOAoyeivccurs.. as o)loAoyeiv? Heraclitus says: oorpov {anv. hich can only be what it is as w a AeyelV. as meaning and reason? At first it does sound strange. The speaking of that which is spoken to is Aeye~v. Such Aeyelv lays one and the same.. in the Aovoc. the hearing appropriate to it cannot proceed casually toward it.. opOAoyeiv remains a AeyelV which always and only lays \ or lets lie whatever is already.is the original assemblage of the primordial gathering from the primordial Laying. with an attention [GehOr] which implies nothing less than their belonging to the Aoyoc. mortals must have already heard the Aoyoe.. Proper hearing occurs essentially in Aeyelv as opoAoydv. We are all ears when our gathering devotes itself entirely to hearkening.. In this fashion Aoyoe. a letting-lie-before of what does lie O before us. We read: ooqxiv {onv. letting-lie-together-before.. When OJ. Thus. "the Laying that gathers. not merely to me (the speaker). It establishes this as itself. '0 AoyoC.. precisely as OJ. But inasmuch as the AdyoC. To belong to speech-this is nothing else than in each case letting whatever a letting-lie-before lays down before us lie gathered in its entirety. and only this. this lying never springs from the opoAoyeiv but rather rests in the Laying that gathers. Thus is Aoyoe. So long as we only listen to the sound of a word.. the ears and the mere invasion of sounds being completely forgotten. if only in the most remote way.. "Not to me. As such.. mortal hearing must attend to something else. is not the Same at all. in its lying there. gathered in the selfsameness of its lying-before. " It refers to the saying and talking of Heraclitus himself. But what occurs when there is proper hearing. It concerns the hearing of mortals. then there is proper'// hearing. It begins with a strict. Fragment B 50) 1 of the city-only and only so far as they always already in some way belong to them and yet do not belong to them. Such a letting-lie establishes whatever lies before us as lying-before.is named without qualification it cannot be just any customary thing. Proper hearing belongs to the Adyoe." But how can anyone decide whether what this translation implies concerning the essence of Advoq remains appropriate. You never hear properly so long as your ears hang upon the sound and flow of a human voice in order to snatch up for yourselves a manner of speaking. This is consequently a Aeyelv which lets lie before us whatever already lies together before us..

can devote itself to it. Fragment B 50) The text which is now current runs: ev ndvru eivcn." But what does "wise" mean? Does it mean simply to know in the way old "wise men" know things? What do we know of such knowing? If it remains a having-seen whose seeing is not of the eyes of the senses. "Ev IIuVTa. which in each case already lies before us. and can dispatch itself toward it (get under way toward it). Die Fragmente der Yorsokratiker. "It is wise to know that everything is one. All: One. I. If we are to think it in Heraclitus' way. the "fateful" is not "Fate. Of course. just as the having-heard is not hearing with the auditory equipment. It becomes concerned with the Laying that gathers. Aeyelv is dispatched to what is appropriate. by way of response? The usual interpretation understands Heraclitus' fragment thus: it J «wise." so called because it gathers to itself all dispensation. When such a thing happens something fateful comes to pass.EARLY GREEK THINKING Logos (Heraclitus. as opoAoyeiv. ev and ndvru. Their indeterminate juxtaposition permits various assertions. The saying closes with'Ev IIuVTa. d Aovoc. * The eivci is an alteration of the sole traditional reading: ev ndvtn eioeVOl. But it not only suffices: it remains far more proper for the matter thought here. And already we face a new riddle: the word Tel~ocpov. How easily one speaks these words. and mortal AEyelv is dispatched to the Aovoc." In this fashion we hit upon the genuine meaning of ooqxiv. does the fateful presence? Heraclitus says: OpOAOyeiv oorpov £oTlv"Ev IIuVTa. Of what sort? Of the sort that maintains itself in the abode of mortals." The conjectural elver is more appropriate. is. Kranz rejects the MillerGomperz paraphrase dOt5vUI and prints elver. The second case applies with Heraclitus' words. and as what. When we want to say that someone is particularly skilled at something we still employ such turns of speech as "he has a gift for that and is destined for it. up to the very words that conclude it." *See Diels-Kranz. 68 69 . 161. to whatever rests in the assemblage of the primordially gathering laying-before. then the fateful comes to pass. How readily they transform themselves into a stolid maxim. or does it first unlock what is to be said. in the sense of being able to revive Heraclitus' own way of representing things. the saying names the Aoyoc. and precisely that which is appropriate to the behavior of mortals. but to a certain kind of behavior. This abiding holds to what the Laying that gathers lets lie before us. Where. By what right? Because the'Ev IIuVTa suffices. according to the thinking of Heraclitus. understood to mean. In the words EV ndvro the hasty superficiality of usual representations collides with the hesitant caution of the thinking that questions. and of the phrase''Ev IIuVTa. Is this conclusion only a termination. which we translate as ":mteful" ['geschicklich"]. They do not refer to a mere grasping. in that which the Laying that gathers has sent. and likewise for the style of Heraclitean speech." When proper hearing. we toil in vain so long as we do not pursue it in the saying in which it speaks. But from this "far remove" we may still succeed in delineating more meaningfully a few characteristics of the scope of the words ev and ndvrc. We do not know their content. is. for all times. we should attempt such a sketch only in reflecting upon what Heraclitus said from within the unity of his saying. (Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. But "fateful" from the start says something more than "skillful. line 17. "the fateful comes to pass insofar as One All. This delineation should remain a free-flowing preliminary sketch rather than a more self-assured portrayal. But oooov is not ro ~ocpov. then having-seen and having-heard presumably coincide. we set aside the verb. We are also far removed from a thoughtful comprehension of these words. 6th ed. The statement "One is all" can lend itself to an overhasty account of the world which hopes to buttress itself with a formula that is in some way correct everywhere. A swarming multiplicity of meanings nestles in both these dangerously harmless words. Thus oooov Signifies that which can adhere to whatever has been indicated. it remains still undecided whether the translation of 0 Advos as "the Laying that gathers" captures even a small part of what the Aovoc is. 1951). Thus it is indeed fateful when mortals accomplish proper hearing. But the"E~ IIuVTa can also conceal a thinker's first steps which initiate all the following steps in the fateful course of thinking. Still. 'OpOAOyeiV occurs when the hearing of mortals has become proper hearing.. One: All.e. i. Because it is appropriate [schickliches] such behavior becomes skillful [geschickt].-TR. Heidegger's citation of B 50 capitalizes'Ev IIdvTQ and drops dvm. As it tells us what and how the fateful is. We have not yet made out what.

What this word means Heraclitus tells us immediately and unequivocally in the beginning of fragment B 7: Ei n:dVTO rd <lVTO . and opposed to. has in itself this revealing-concealing character. 176 reads: oonppoverv enolovrm. Adyo~ lets-lie-together-before. Fragment B 50) lets QAIl8eo. The unique One unifies as the Laying that gathers. with its unifying dominance. in gathering. It has something to relate. it discloses what is present in its presencing. Such opposites. it lets lie before us what lies before us as such and as a whole. Dionysos and Hades. When OpOAOyeiVoccurs.EARLY GREEK THINKING Logos (Heraclitus. The unifying that rests in Aeyelv is neither a mere comprehensive collecting nor a mere coupling of opposites which equalizes all contraries. Adyo~ says how'Ev Iluvro essentially occurs. let the Laying that gathers lie before us in its full bearing. However. draw. Presencing nevertheless suggests: having come forward to endure in unconcealment. as it were. To lay is to secure. and wisdom consists in saying the truth and acting in accordance with nature. Do we wander off the path if we think Aoyo~ as Aeyel v prior to all profound metaphysical interpretations. Where do we ever find.. as unifying. It assembles in that. \/ such as day and night. for what is fateful comes to pass when. laid down everything present in unconcealment. What? Ildvro.. Because the Aoyo~ lets lie before us what lies before us as such. from which whatever lingers awhile in presence can be appropriately collected and brought forward by mortal AeyelV. However. "Ev Ildvrn says what the Aoyo~ is. Its laying is itself that which carries things along by bearing them out. as Aoyo~. If we may venture another translation: "Thinking is the greatest arete. Adyo~ is in itself and at the same time a revealing and a concealing. rather:Ev Ildvro suggests the way in which Aoyo~ essentially occurs. There is the Aoyo~. Unconcealment needs concealment.. that is. one another. B 112*). Aeyelv oocpiIj dAIj8eo Aeyelv xnl rtoreiv xurd cptiOlv Healthful thinking is the greatest perfection. "-TR. while repeating what one has heard in the statement: One is All. borne along the farthest distance between presence and absence. listening to it. is what is unique. as gathering letting-lie-together-before. Adyo~. "Ev Ildvrn is not what the Aoyo~ pronounces. 0poAoyeiv occurs. not merely things that are fated. lie before us (cf. It is 'AArieew. waking and sleeping. All disclosure releases what is present from concealment. This and Adyo~ are the Same. to wit. it becomes equally clear that this unifying which occurs in the Adyo~ remains infinitely different from what we tend to represent as a connecting or binding together. But disclosure is 'AAri8elO. it puts those things back. dpOAOyeiV is never properly Fate itself. but the fateful itself? What is the fateful *Fragment B 112. KO! is wise to listen to the pronouncement of the Aoyo~ and to heed the meaning of what is pronounced. It unifies by assembling. Diels-Kranz I. In our formulation it reads: <> Adyo~ Aeyel. olO!pepopevov. 70 71 . TheEv Jldvrn lets lie together before us in one presencing things which are usually separated from. and as this One. that everything is one. This is assembled in the "Ev. can be nothing other than the essence of unification. peace and war..' Both are the Same. which assembles everything in the totality of simple presencing? There is only one appropriate answer to the question of what Adyo~ is. The"Ev is itself a carrying out. Aoyo~ lays that which is present before and down into presencing. "If everything (namely) which is present . " The Laying that gathers has. how the "Ev essentially occurs. is. The' A-Ari8elO rests in Ari8Il. "Ev is the unique One. thereby thinking to establish seriously that Aeyelv. the fateful comes to pass. unconcealment as such. drawing from it and laying before us whatever remains deposited in ArieIj. as a reservoir upon which disclosure can. the Laying that gathers. dperr] uevforn. Then there is also that which it relates. When we can see in Aoyo<. the''Ev Fldvtu is not what the Advoc relates as a maxim or gives as a meaning to be understood. Laying secures everything present in its presencing. Whatever is named'Ev Ildvro in Heraclitus' fragment gives us a simple clue concerning what the Adyo<. we let unconcealment lie before us and bring forth [what is present] along the lines of self-disclosure. ArieIl. in dedicated hearkening. This gathering and laying unifying assembles all uniting in itself.. Disclosure needs concealment. as unifying. When mortal Aeyelv is dispatched to the Aoyo~. winter and summer. so that it is this One.

e. to be assembled under the name "Zeus. then perhaps it would always have to remain an apparition. ." To name means to call forward. But how is Aoyoc." But if the'Ev is the same as the Advoc. we must weigh what it says in the first line: "Ev . naming. the Aovoc. That the saying under consideration concerns AeyeoSOl in immediate relation to dvouo (the naming word). essential place. or does the priority of denial have its ground in the matter itself? ForEv ndVTO. and by its assembling it secures everything in the totality. Only after that does Ka! e8eAel follow: the'Ev is "yet also ready.. the result is: <>Aovoc TO ooqiov uouvov. and Zeuc all together. "But lightning steers (in presencing) the totality (of what is present). The "Ev. thought in terms of Aeyelv. However. The lightning named here steers. but rather to allow something a reference back to itself. which seems to contradict directly everything said above concerning Aeyelv and AOY0c. Thus Zeus is designated in an exceptional way in presencing. if we are to consider carefully the import of what is said in the saying. It brings all things forward to their designated. In the first place the'Ev. Fragment B 50) The word tbat carries the saying. talking. and appropriately called to such an apportionment (Moipa) in the all-assemblingEv.. (Diels-Kranz) 72 73 . as A6yoc.EARLY GREEK THINKlNG Logos (Heraclitus. as <>POAOyeiV.:Ev IIdvTO." For if in such assemblage the"Ev should be brought to light as Zeus. Such instantaneous bringing is the Laying that gathers. is not ready . "Lightning" appears here as an epithet of Zeus. is not itself one present being among others. Thus each being can be joined and sent into its own. however. "The unique-unifying-One. ". ultimately to relieve itself of this unfamiliar burden with the aid of a ready forgetfulness. he certainly gives us difficult matters to think about." i.. comes to light and comes to lie before us. is not simply someone present among others. With regard to our question whether Aovoc ('Ev IIdvTO) and Zeuc. The only properly fateful matter is the Aoyoc. " Ready for what? For Aeyeaem.. The essence of Aovoc thus would offer a clue concerning the divinity of the god. i. Fate.." Lightning abruptly lays before us in an instant everything present in the light of its presencing. the Aoyo<.e. he only gives us to think.is designed to allow us renewed thinking on whether and how far Aeyelv in the sense of "saying" and "talking" is intelligible only if it is thought in its most proper sense-as "laying" and "gathering. are the Same. how it destiny proper. the'Ev Ildvru. is not the expressing of a wordmeaning but rather a letting-lie-before in the light wherein something stands in such a way that it has a name. keeping each absent and present being in its place and on its way. he is alloted this special designation. Hera- rs oe clitus says (B 32): "Ev TO ~o<pov poilvov A£yeo8u1 OUK£8£A£1 KU! £8£A£1 ZIlVOC: OVOJlQ' The One. That which is gathered and laid down in the name. for his part. although as the one who aims lightning-bolts he executes Fate's dispensations. eSeAw. does not want and yet does want to be called by the name Zeus.. Ought we now to place Aoyoc. As the highest of gods. dispatched toward what is is fateful. The naming (ovouo). the Laying that gathers. itself? Heraclitus says what it is unequivocally at the beginning of fragment B 32:"Ev T(l oooov poirvov. Zeus. which alone is wise. it is sent on its fated way. does not mean "to want. The representational thought of subsequent centuries and millennia has carried this question along without thinking it.. He is the highest of present beings. that is.. to appear as Zeus: OUKe8eAel. would accordingly be nothing other than the highest god." but rather "to be ready of itselffor .. lets everything present come to presence. The Aovoc. Zeus is cosmic destiny." Is it only a manner of speaking when Heraclitus says first that the "Ev does not admit the naming in question. the assembly of that which sends everything into its own? The Laying that gathers assembles in itself all destiny by bringing things and letting them lie before us. Heraclitus says (B 64): rd Tldvru oiaKi~el Kepcuvdc. AeyeoSm oilx eSeAeI. by means of such a laying. eSiAw does not mean merely to demand something. the destining of everything fateful. is not in its innermost essence ready to appear under the name "Zeus. "the unique One unifying all is alone the fateful. indisputably points to the meaning of Aeynv as saying. It is in its way unique. When mortal AeYelV. and even assert that Heraclitus teaches pantheism? Heraclitus does not teach this or any doctrine. So precisely this saying of Heraclitus. Zeus is not himself the "Ev. the fateful. As a thinker.

to the Laying of a that gathers. but be in hearkening to the Laying that gathers. such hearing is when a letting-lie-together-before occurs by which the gathering letting-lie. however. the fateful comes to pass. and try to translate into our language what Heraclitus said. the'Ev does admit of being named Zeus. according to the saying.. then mortal AeY£lVis skillfully brought to the gathering of the Aovoc. nor can Aeyelv be simply a copying of the definitive Aovoc. as"Ev IIdvTU.has a more primordial origin-and this in the simple middle region between both. not at all apply. eeds olloAoyeiv if present beings are to n appear and shine in presencing. which the last-named saying (B 43) indicates to be the most necessary of all: 74 75 . lies before us as gathered. as the destiny of presencing itself.e.as theEv IIdvTU and submit themselves to its measurement. lone. "Ev IIdvTU as 0 Advoc. the mortal speaker. the'Ev alone is TO ~oq>ov. v-- If we set aside the commentary." On the other hand. If the "Ev is not apprehended as being by itself the Aoyo<. Yet whether it is thought as "laying" or as "saying. This is needed because AoyoC.in its Aeyelv essentially occurs. Therefore Heraclitus says (B 43): 'Y~PIV xpr] o~evvuvOl )lQAAOV tl JlUPKQ1rlv. then neither can Aovoc be the overcoming of mortal Aeyelv. The totality of present beings is under its highest aspect the "Ev as Zeus. The "Ev IIdvTU indeed contains the clue to the way in which Aoyo<. though not forgetting it. the Laying that gathers. Now that the saying of Heraclitus speaks more clearly. first belong to this and then you hear properly. the path remains at first confused and confounded by the very ways which early Greek thinking opened for those who were to follow. his saying reads: Attuned not to me but to the Laying that gathers: letting the Same lie: the fateful occurs (the Laying that gathers): One unifying All Mortals. It is destined to be appropriated in ouoxoveiv. are fateful when they measure the AoyoC. destiny alone. when a letting-lie of the letting-lie-before occurs. In this way mortal Aeyelv is fateful. is the Aovoc. Then whatever essentially occurs in the Aeyelv of olloAoyeiv and in the AeY£lvof the Aoyo<. But it is never Fate itself. whose essence remains appropriated in olloAoyeiv. which is itself the Fate in which presencing as such and for all present beings rests? Or does such questioning. i. the Laying that gathers. How? The answer is already contained in what has just been said. Mortal Aeyelv lies secured in the Aovoc. the fateful as Fate itself: the gathering of destiny into presence. If the QKm5elV mortals is directed to AoyoC. then and only then does the totality of present beings show itself under the direction of the highest present being as one totality under this [unifying] One. The saying of Heraclitus under discussion (B 50) states. then the truly fateful. then would not a particular aspect of mortal being be elevated to become the fundamental trait of that which. Fragment B 50) \ That with respect to the tgeAel the OUK designated first suggests is that the'Ev does not properly admit of being named Zeus. i.imply the elevation and transfer of the mortars way-to-be to that of the unique One? Does mortal Aeyelv remain only an image corresponding to the Aoyo<.. Thus it remains appropriated to the Advoc.if it appears rather as the IIdvTU. Measureless pride needs to be extinguished sooner than a raging fire. As Aovoc. The "Ev itself.e. which attaches itself to the guidelines of an Either-Or. 'Ouoxoveiv dispatches itself without presumption into the measuring of the Advoc.EARLY GREEK THINKING Logos (Heraclitus. is: the unique One unifying All. stands above all mortal and immortal being? Does the Aoyo<. We shall limit ourselves to stepping back before the riddle. because its approach is from the start inadequate to the inquiry here undertaken? If this is so. what it says again threatens to fade into obscurity. Is there a path for mortal thinking to that place? In any case. From the saying first considered (B 50) we receive a distant counsel. and of being thereby degraded to the level of existing as one being present among others-even if the "among" has the character of "above all other present beings. according to our translation and commentary: Do not listen to me. in order to get a first glimpse of several of its puzzling aspects." does Aeyelv forever remain merely a type of mortal behavior? If"Ev IIdvTU were the Aovoc.

TO elvcn TWV OVTWV. the Being of beings would not now govern from the essence of modern technology.. language came to be represented-indeed first of all with the Greeks-as vocalization. the gathering of what still endures. esse entium. the being in its Being. What would have come to pass had Heraclitus-and all the Greeks after him-thought the essence oflanguage expressly as AoyoC. Every kind of expression is represented as a kind of language. Had this beginning not safeguarded what has been. and so by making <> Advoc the guiding word of his thinking. Where does this word d AoyoC. then that in which the beginning of Western thought rests first becomes manifest: that in Greek antiquity the Being of beings becomes worthy of thought is the beginning of the West and is the hidden source of its destiny.is forthwith transformed. TO Aeyelv. s the name for the Being of beings." This correct but externally contrived representation of language. into such a saying. And this oblivion remains hidden. that is. If we think this historic development in a truly historical way. Instead. to tell. Not only this. Heraclitus included. '0 Aovoc. qxovr]. The translation of Aeyelv as gathered-letting-Iie-before. But the phrase now wishes to think something else: "to bring to language" means to secure Being in the essence of language. may seem strange. because the conception of A6yoc."tongue. In the thinking of Heraclitus the Being (presencing) of beings appears as d Aovoc. Language would be the gathering letting-lie-before of what is present in its presencing. 76 \ the distinction between the two as a distinction. saying. whether it be to kindle or extinguish it. and language. Since the beginning of Western thought the Being of beings emerges as what is alone worthy of thought. Language is taken to be expression. We say the Being of beings. as the Laying that gathers." Language is qxovr]onuuvnxri. the Greeks dwelt in this essential determination of language. put out first the flames of presumption.-which we are now attempting to think as the Laying that gathers-lead Heraclitus' thought? The word d A6yoc. in Latin. The presencing of present beings the Greeks call TO eov. would be the essence of saying [die Sage] as thought by the Greeks. early on and for a long time it was inconceivable that the Being of beings could have brought itself to language in the word d Aovoc. Thus. '0 Aoyoc. What happens when the Being of beings. is brought to language? "To bring to language" usually means to express something orally or in writing. to say. and of AoyoC. and vice versa. is the Laying that gathers. language as "expression.e. May we suggest that such an event prepared itself when d AoyoC. It is still so today. This suggests that language attains at the outset that preponderant character which we designate with the name "expression. The Greek word that corresponds to our word "language" is YAwooa. But this lightning-flash of Being remains forgotten. although in an entirely different way." remains definitive from now on. because it became the name for the Being of beings? '0 Aoyoc. familiar to them. For d AoyoC. '0 A6yoC.EARLY GREEK THINKING LiJgos (Heraclitus.became the guiding word of Heraclitus' thinking. a vocalization which signifies something.names that which gathers all present beings into presencing and lets them lie before us in it.. hence phonetically. by weaving the words Aeyelv and AOYOC.. The Greeks do experience saying in this way. Yet it is more salutary for thinking to wander into the strange than to establish itself in the obvious. which overestimates itself and takes poor measure because it forgets the essence of AeyelV. as this itself. to exhibit. i.as the Laying that gathers. Fragment B 50) Before you play with fire. they never think the essence of language expressly as the Aovoc. thought as the Laying that gathers. as sound and voice. Language would be saying.as the Laying that gathers! Nothing less than this: the Greeks would have thought the essence oflanguage from the essence of Being-indeed. as the Laying that gathers.names that in which the presencing of what is present comes to pass. Yet none of i this came to pass. in its turn. Nowhere do we find a trace of the Greeks' having thought the essence of language directly from the essence of Being. Art 77 . But at the same time Aeyel" always means for the Greeks to lay before. But. Presumably Heraclitus alienated his contemporaries at least as much. But they never thought it-Heraclitus included. then would be the Greek name for speaking. Through technology the entire globe is today embraced and held fast in a kind of Being experienced in Western fashion and represented on the epistemological models of European metaphysics and science. In fact.

the essence oflanguage flashed in the light of Being-once. thinking changes the world.EARLY GREEK THINKING \ historians speak of the "language of forms. We organize all available means for cloudseeding and storm dispersal in order to have calm in the face of the storm. cooc 6POTOi KutegevTO rtenorflcrec elver aAI]9Ii. depths which as they grow darker offer promise of a greater brightness. all these will be mere names which mortals have laid down.end to ye Moip' enioI]oev OUAOV dxfvnrov r' Ellllevm: tul rtdvr' dvou' eOtUl. The riddle has long been propounded to us in the word "Being. But the lightning abruptly vanished. 34-41) The relation between thinking and Being animates all Western reflection... No one held onto its streak oflight and the nearness of what it illuminated. in the sense of writers. In another verse. to voefv: ouoev yap I] fOTIV I] eOTm dAAO ndpet. 78 79 ." Once. For there neither is nor shall be anything outside of being. more precisely. The lines read: rrnlrov 0' eOTi voeiv re KU! ouvexev eOTl venue. For without the being in relation to which it is uttered you cannot find thinking. It changes it in the ever darker depths of a riddle. THREE Moira (Parmenides VIII.ev qJ rteqxmouevov eOTlv.as his guiding word. Yet everything today betrays the fact that we bestir ourselves only to drive storms away. Just the same. For that reason. It remains the durable touchstone for determining to what extent and in what way we have been granted both the privilege and the capacity to approach that which addresses itself to historical man as to-be-thought. The word of thinkers knows no authors. when Heraclitus thought the AoyoC. The word of thinkers has no authority. since Moira bound it to be whole and immovable." In this matter "Being" remains only the provisional word. so as to think in this word the Being of beings. elvcf re KU! oilxf. Thinking and the thought "it is" are the same. We see this lightning only when we station ourselves in the storm of Being. The word of thinking is not picturesque. the narcotization of anxiety in the face of thinking. Let us first thoughtfully consider that "Being" was originally called "presencing"-and "presencing": enduring-here-before in unconcealment. III): to yap mho voeiv eOTiv re xni elvci. he elaborates this saying. rou MVTOC. ou yap dveu TOUeovTOC. Fragment VIII. yiyve09ui re Kui oAAu08m. For thinking and Being are the same. Kui rortov aAAaOOeIv Old re xpoa CPUVQV alleipeIv. Parmenides names this relation in his saying (Frag. To think is surely a peculiar affair. Let us see to it that our thinking does not merely run after it blindly. however. But this calm is no tranquility. in the beginning of Western thinking. euprJoelC. It is only anesthesia. The word of thinking rests in the sobering quality of what it says. it is without charm.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful