Disappearance: darkness—stepping back out of—giving way to: to a persistence in; taking into consideration—receding acquiesces; testifies— contourlessness.
Cf. text.
2. Anaximander and the first empowering of the essence
Cf. Überlegung II, 124ff.1
3. Anaximander—and in general fragments—
What kind of “object” such a fragment is and accordingly what kind of treatment, kind of dealing with it for it!
Something cast off—which manifests precisely the swing and the casting— the direction into the open realm—becoming absent—the reigning plight which holds back while co-forming and releases the project—this latter as it were kept up and kept open. To be sure, also just as certain the “danger” of the most obtuse belittlement.
Supposing we enter completely into what is pro-jected and weighty and provide it the self-recoiling swing of the foothold. The now fixed oscillation of a trembling—which still harbors something of the dimension of the oscillation.
What would be—if no fragments—but rather finished? Then a fortiori—“inceptual”—provisional—surpassed—left behind—our superiority still more unrestrained—and the step to the beginning even less prepared and measured.
4. Anaximander
τὸ ἄπειρον—the limitless—what does not come to presence—thus also never disappears—the absent—over and against that—which emerges to presence and reverts from it.
While emerging and withdrawing and circling around presence—in one way or another over and against absence.
Even this and precisely it as essentially occurring—in the present??
Dominant outcome.
N.B. the limitless ≠ the “and so forth”—the inexhaustible?
1. {In Überlegungen II–VI, GA94.}