However, the question remains whether and how duration and permanence correspond to the essence of presencing. This question can only be answered from what enjoins as the essence of presencing and as such enjoinment is called: ἀρχή τών ὄντων τὸ ἄπειρον. Enjoinment repels the limit for what presences. Being is presencing, but not necessarily duration in the sense of a hardening into permanence. However, does not all presencing fulfill itself precisely in the greatest possible duration? Is not a being more of a being the more steadfast and lasting it is? Does not the greatest possible securing of a being as a being lie in the greatest possible durability? Certainly—certainly, that is, in the sense of the certainty in which we contemporary ones think we know the being of beings. This certainty contains a truth about beings that reaches back even to the Greek thinkers: that permanence and duration, the ἀεί, lastingness, contains the highest distinction of the ὄν, of what presences. However, this incipient saying, ἀρχή τῶν ὄντων τὸ ἄπειρον, says something else. It only remains for us to fit selves to the saying, provided we want to hear its word and not our own opining.
c) The governance of being as ἀρχή and ἄπειρον in γένεσις and φθορά for the presencing of beings
Being is presencing, but not necessarily duration unto lasting permanence. For if permanence were precisely the non-essence of presencing, wouldn't permanence deprive presencing of something essential to it? To be sure. For γένεσις, presencing, does not mean mere presence, but emerging and opening up. Presencing is distinguished by γένεσις, emergence. Mere presence, in the sense of the present at hand, has already set a limit to presencing, emergence, and has thus given up presencing. Duration brings non-essence into presencing and takes from it the possibility of what belongs to presencing as emerging-forth and opening-up, that is, returning and eluding.
Emergence is not an abandonment of that from whence it has emerged. At most, what has emerged, a being, and only what has emerged, could be thought as if enjoinment had surrendered it. However, in truth that is impossible, because only emergence itself stands within