Reflections on the resistance that resists by entering the ergon or tonality, which is True, as what is True as what is the Same
Seen wholly apart from the historical character of the polysemy of a word, language nevertheless has an essentially historical character such that it appears to us to be a complex of words whose words, as one says, are the bearers of meaning and therefore have meaning. That such is the case with words--that there are word-meanings--we hold as being as obvious as the fact that beings appear to us as Objects. Hence both of these representations are also related in a way. Apropos of this ordinary representation of words, namely that they have a meaning, we find various meanings of the word Grund. When we ask after the fundamental meaning [Grundbedeutung] of the word Grund, we have, with this very question, already answered, that means introduced, what we mean by Grund, namely the basis, the fundus upon which something rests, stands, and lies. We speak of foundation walls [Grundmauern], of a fundamental rule [Grundregel], of a fundamental principle [Grundsatz].
The maintenance of a path consists of the intangible charisma of a constant letting what is most favored be heard, so that it guides by being what is most worth while. All such maintenance is what could be abandoned, insofar as whoever forsakes the path knowing that the path doesn't exist, by example, for the sake of the intensity of experiences without regard to whether they are melting into the air or like the true stars, the true sky, and the true sun, fails to follow the path as that which doesn't exist. To follow what doesn't exist remains an open path, and is called "steadfast resoluteness".
“One can imagine a man who is totally deaf and has never had a sensation of sound and music. Perhaps such a person will gaze with astonishment at Chladni's sound figures; perhaps he will discover their causes in the vibrations of the string and will now swear that he must know what men mean by "sound." It is this way with all of us concerning language; we believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things—metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities.” From Nietzsche's essay On Truth and Lies Without Morals [without telos is meant]
Without guidance is whoever is forsaken by the truth, which lays behind what is merely there as what is the Same.
Here, the talk of “representation”, which had played so conspicuous and decisive a role in the history of the world itself, of all things on the earth, not so much as talk, but as what attunes one most sharply to the “every tightening circle of the forces of technology”, by letting the scientific, the clear and distinct everywhere find its ground, finds its saying as what stands in contradistinction to any criterion, to any system of so-called epistemology, to any attempt to guide human beings by means of a philosophy, which has now become a word like ideology, rationalization, fiction, propaganda, idealism, value. Insofar as “representation” comes to mean fact, not as a human doing, but as a clear and distinct or scientific truth, it comes to be a mouthpiece for technicity as the essence of this age. At the same time, here, in the thought of the ergon of the work with the name Heidegger, it names the thought there in what is. I.e, it speaks of the “second tonality”.
“Representation” is what is the Same. This is a change in tonality from Kant. In Kant, representation names a specific determination of the phenomenon, or of the appearances. The view that the appearances are created, or, legislated, as Kant says it, by the so-called subject. Which means the same as that what science is everywhere relative to, space and time, are the creation of the so-called subject. Not as what is “subjective”, not of human being, as opposed to a bee, but as the fundamental manner of any world coming forth in its jointure or harmony, of the order of all things as what is identical for the science of the non-metaphysical physics, the observational science, and for the visionary glance of theoria which orients and lets theory become what masters practice, such that it becomes technicity. Such that it has nothing to do with the “thinking there” of equipment worthy of the use and enjoyment of serious beings.
Appearances must be thought as the appearances of something. Like appearances, representations, in a certain sense, represent something, but they are as much renderings, which is to say, what is built on the spot, and does not correspond to something else. In Husserl this rendering becomes explicit because all thought of a ethical teleology, of a moral noumenal region, is dropped. True, Husserl still speaks of “the point of it all”, in saying that only if it all ended might one speak to this “point”, thus, he reminds us of someone still speaking like the Utopians, like Kant, Hegel, Marx.
When the representation, which is still representation, is thought in the new tonality, as what is the Same, it loses this sense of having a noumenal background, or of being the appearance of something. Yet, at the same time, it represents the Geschick of being. But not in the manner of a brain that processes electrical impulses, and creates the world, from the data of the electrons, which as light or heat have entered the eyes. Such accounts, which can never answer the question about why the world comes forth, are put aside. Neither does what appears sink back to a real nature, or essence. It finds in the essence, what is holding sway, which means: entity. The essences are thought as entities, so that in representing, they speak of what is the Same also in the “holding sway”, everything thinkable comes to the same level, as it were, but not as something “flat”. The withdrawal and the lighting are supposed to happen here, so to say, not in some “behind” world, or in the “real brain” which must be posited in a scientific account, in order to explain what it is that creates the representational brain. When representation is what is the Same, it falls wholly prey to the Geschick, which itself brings forward all things, all entities, including questioning, including the holding sway, including representation.
However small this change in the tonality of the thought, with the tattered strings showing everywhere, as though of something laid open, but deprived of all solid operative potency, it is something never before found, as a path of thought. One, however, who makes this thought their own, as it stands there, not as what is present, for whatever is present is present for the operation of the operative sciences, but rather by entering this tone, which rises like the pathetic whistle of someone calling a dog, which is aware of nothing but this Same that permeates the whole, has come to what is most open in thought as though they were more completely awake to the difficulties, and more clear headed, then those who still attempted to tie loose ends together from amidst the wreckage. This entering is itself an entity, but as it is known, which is to say thought, to be an entity, and not a wisdom, it resembles the death of God, since what resounds in it is a call not towards the Good, the Sacred Heart, nor to the Utopia, but this authenticity, to which the eros or wisdom calls, too, appears, as entity, but it appears under the sounding of what is the Same. This pathological, as it were, enigma and trick, reminding one of Nietzsche, is thought in something more like the antipathy of Nietzschean erosion, of the abyss of all peaks. At the same time what is strange is that if the thought is thought as archetypal, as a path that is not individual, but which makes the thinker heroic, as it were, which is universal, and not historial, a different region comes into the thinking, as though the synteresis in each thinking, stands in the fear of pitfalls, which are in each case peculiarly known, and only known in their essence, by that darting invigilation which glances darkly on each possibility of error.