---

Some Expressionistic Pondering of a Small paragraph at the end of the Eleventh Hour of the Lecture Course on the powerful principle of Leibnitz

 

# 32

When we ask what is called Grund, then we at first mean what the word signifies; the word signifies something; it gives us something to understand and does so because it speaks to us of something.

----

--

One must not wreck oneself to nought under the predilection of a maxim that demands only that activity which led to a human goal, a concrete goal, empty in itself due to its ultimate illegibility, since the horizon is never but a melting into thin air, in the light of the historial, in the light of the fading of all theologies, in the light of the emptiness of the projects of beings, in the face of the failure of all Western projects, of the world project, there can be no moral obligation to disdain or look down on some obscurantist, as though man as man existed and had a telos. In the lack of a telos no higher judge can speak to what deserves praise or blame, or what is obscuring or Enlightening. 

Only those who can discern the ergon of a thinking, by virtue of an ear for thought, can assume bother with thought. Can assume to recover the work of a thinking. Nothing can come to oblige one to respect or refuse such work as though it were a matter of giving views about political direction. That is, except the political and its arbitrary captivation which has no higher warrant.

Everything stands in a fundamental vagueness, but tends to think there might be, there must be, more than the vagueness. The fundamental vagueness, the grounding in existence. But, this would be no grounding if it were not already directed towards its own deviation and to evade itself in the lighting that happens when the break is sensed. One breaks towards Reason, towards the certainty of knowing what is going on. Ergo, the fundamental Grund, the Grund, is what appears in the light of the bifurcation of Grund and Reason. Existence means the same thing as the denial of Reason as an ascending from opinion--the Socratic project of Eros, Wisdom as such. Existentialism is impossible because the denial of Reason is the denial of Grund. Yet, one still, in the thinking, knows what Grund says, what fundamental says, what start and ascent says. One starts, one ascends, but in the lichtung of the destruction of the True world and the apparent world. The apparent world appears, and ascent towards the Truth begins, but it is already faded out. 

The rat in its sordid activity, when pointed out to the Chinese with the intention of pointing to the problem, the health violation, is understood to have been pointed to for the reason of an opportunity to admire the animal that has had a year named after it. Look at the rat: “Yea, that’s a big one.” Everything in its being, in its truth, lies in the core of the “-” between the given and the one who has an inner life. The given is never what a thing is, it is only the ground. And the one who finds the Reasons, only seeks to bring what is There to the rule. At first, in the first age of philosophy, when the definition was meant, not to bring about the lawlike description, it aimed at, in the defining, to speak the core of the being. This would be different in the Morning Land view than in the Land of the Declining Sun. But, no longer is there East and West, since they have come into the whirlwind of concomitant being in the lighting of the event of the historial. 

The theoretical no more than the empirical can speak of the rat as rat. But thought itself can enter into the cirrcle as Hermenutical Circle, without doing the work of interpretation or the reasoning about what is as the truth of this or that world, it may, without speaking, remaining what circles about in the erosive abyss of the eidos. The eidos that is not eternal or part of the true Sky speaking to man as man of the True Stars above so that it fills the breast, the "-" of the is of the world with the predeliniation of the authentic or the autonomous from which the way of life is spelled out in the guidance for the soul made legible in the laws that are above, but capable of drawing into, the becoming or accidental order, that, since what has come before is not restraint, can be what is conducive to the full and permanent good of man as man. 

This is the sense that the return to being, in the egon of that text that bears the name Heidegger, is always saying that History is what is supposed to rekindle the sense of what comes prior to the bifurcation. Clarity about the vagueness: Grund, fundamental grounding in the vagueness of daily thought. The demands for presentation of the why, the different ages of the Geschik of Thought, the holding of being that is not in the conscious motives of the ones who are being mortal, and who see the thing there that is alongside the other things there. Philosophy is no word, that names philosophy, ultimately, since what is cancerous in the thing said, brought to the gentleman who look on and are amused by the activity, to the newspaper and the Wikipedia article, is not the name of philosophy but of sophistry. At the same time, philosophy, as the decay, stands within the practice of philosophy, almost like an obstacle to its historial essence, in, e.g., the correctness of the word rat that speaks two beings.

The Cyclical Problem: Thought always acts like a cancer that has what is thought as the cancerous flake, built on what came before. Whenever Though begins, it is always standing in something Become, or it is wanting to think what has Become as part of the stream of thought of being. It thinks this way, it thinks that way. It starts, it dies like memory, something dead, it builds on what is dead. It can’t escape the presence of beginning in a available thought, in what is there. Broder is the first to bring out the cyclical question, but it is not adequately thought through. This is because all thought until this, was as thinking towards a regulative service: in order to make more of the thought. However, this claim is easily open to confounding and withering critique from all sides. It is only said in order to bring the thought into the basic circumstance of the thought of those with philosophic ability. Which are amazingly few.