The realm of questioning of our treatise is the ὂν η ὂν: beings as
beings; but now this means being. And what is being asked about is
a way of being that folds itself in four foldings that are simply listed
in a row. τὸ ὂν λέγεται πολλαχώς means: τὸ εἶναι ( τοῦ ὄντος )
λέγεται πολλαχώς. The πολλαχώς ascribed to ὂν and εἶναι refers in
most cases to the four ways of being mentioned above, even when at
times only two or three of these are listed: πολλαχώς = τετραχώς.
Here we will sketch out the general basis for the problem of substance. In the form of an expressionistic light that casts itself towards the place of the great thinkers, hoping they catch a bit of this lesser light, which is but a play attempting to sense their regions. Nothing of the region of these thinkers is genuinely aimed at, rather a formal thinking, concerning the conception of substance, is at work. In Spinoza nature naturing, and nature natured, correspond to the fold of dunamis and energeia. Energia is actus purus for Thomas. The region of potential is divined, through the movment of faith (conceived as the purest knowing) beyond the strictly knowable (for the meditative intellect), as God. In Descartes, this matter of actuality and potential is hardly taken up as the most serious thing, rather, the curious notion of a duel substance does not seem to speak to this region (it arises through the searching for support for an empirical stock of knowledge, a historia or investigation that builds up and may be styled inductive.) And yet, amidst this useful knowing that aims at commanding nature, there too, in its own way, comes this issue—as though forced against all tendentious historial projects. What stands as the cogito sum, basicly understands perceiving, the action, as what necessarily is as the ground of perception, the knowing. Perceiving, Sather Tower stands there, not for someone, not for someone standing and looking from a distance, but that it is there, is the perceiving, its action. And, let us call it perception, i.e., that it is known. Not known by someone who glances up from the path, looking towards the East, but as what the ground grounds. The Cartesian manner of thinking the perceiving and perceptual power of the phenomena, is the actus purus as a self knowing. The existence of the perceiving as the energia, as the potential, is the ground of the actual, of the perception (of the purest natura naturata.)
Here we have emphasised: πολλαχώς = τετραχώς.
The “=” must be taken as deliberate. The saying πολλαχώς as τετραχώς is omitted. It is a verbal transformation. The poly means the four. Poly simply says four.
The nihilistic essence of substance, and power potential, never overcome this fold. Such is at least the primary, or most extrinsic and punctuated, claim of the text with the name Heidegger. Expressed in the saying that Nietzsche is “ontic”. Kierkegaard, too, for his part, is condemned to this dreary ontic region. As for Aristotle, he almost instinctively raised the ontic to the level of the clearest and most sharply acute visibility, where it, as ousia, as though by the high gravity of the primordial, which it was closing out, at the end of the First Beginning, perhaps sealing the wound mentioned in the “peculiar” comment, that the ancients feared being would go away. The terror in the face of the numina, so characteristic of the archaic world, in which Artemis was raised up as cult figure, is wholly alien to our own epoch. Even an inkling of its onslaught can not be said to reach us. For in what smiles out of the reactivation of classical and archaic thought, in the pages of this and that text, and in archaeological artifacts or “traces,” the stench of the blood, as the poet told of it, holds with its recondite cavern of obliterated memorey. All the same, if some dim rummer had not reached us, the attempt to think would not be the injunction already at work in this inquiry we are now undertaking.
ὂν η ὂν: beings as beings; but now this means being
And this names the idle sleepiness and enfeebled activity of the question of primordial being, or, better said, the being which by rubric is not conceptualizable. For now, with Aristotle’s saying of ousia, of substance, a brilliant white sun, utterly blinding, is becoming the Christian region. This dazzling cusp, with its all-encompassing pure light, now stands ready to rise and leave mankind (cf., of course, Hegel, who has dramatized this movment most aptly).