thus something that does not have limit. Not to have is usually to lack, but here in no way is the meaning a not-having in the sense of doing without something on account of a defect. Here the not-having has the sense of disdaining and dismissing on account of superabundance, superiority over everything formed, everything enclosed in contours. τὸ ἄπειρον is what disposes of beings as such and, as this kind of disposing that ordains, constitutes Being. It is what allows all appearance, as entrance into contours, to come into noncompliance without letting it loose but, instead, so as to fetch it back into disappearance and compliance.
That beings are and insofar as they are—that is what the noncompliance consists in, because what appears must forsake limitlessness and persist in contours. The expression noncompliance does not merely signify disavowal of compliance, without compliance, for at the same time “compliance” remains in the sense that it signifies the ineluctable cadre of Being.4 (Abruptly back to the first pronouncement!)
Beings, inasmuch as they are, stand under the constraint of Being. τὸ χρεών—the noncompliance disposes of them out of the ἀρχή, the cadre that disposes. And now we understand better what it means that the whence and whither5 are the same origin of what appears, which is out of the limitless and returns to it in receding. In appearance as such, there happens a constant confirmation of the limitless. This latter, in all appearance and disappearance, has a privileged self-showing—the disposing—the empowering power.
As what appears disappears, it gives compliance back to the noncompliant. This giving-back happens in such a way that the individual beings correspond to one another—in the sense that they dovetail seamlessly into one another in the correspondence which is co-posited through the possession of contours, the delineation of the relations in which one appearance stands to another. The ἀλλήλοις is to be referred emphatically to τίσις, and that means: what appears does not disappear just in any way and at any time, as long as in general compliance is given back to the noncompliant; on the contrary, καὶ τίσιν ἀλλήλοις—and specifically in such a way that the enduring correspondence of day and night, birth and death, fame and disgrace is maintained: “acquiescing to a correspondence with one another.”
4. inadequate—not contour as such, but that the contour endures without escape, departure, insists on tarrying. {Trscpt1}
5. ἐξ ὧν—εἰς ταῦτα [plural]—| but then why not ἐξ οὗ—εἰς τοῦτο [singular]? Because τὸ ἄπειρον, as the superiority of the superabundance of appearance and disappearance, is what releases them and takes them back (cf. above, p. 4), not as some sort of present at hand void of what is completely indeterminate.