unreasonable demand. One extricates oneself by indicating that here the word "time," e.g., is carried over to something else.
The quantitative (quantitas) can appear as a category because it is basically the essence (distorted essence) of beyng itself, but this latter is at first sought only in the beingness of beings, with beings understood as the present and constant.
That the quantitative becomes quality therefore means that although the distorted essence of beyng is not recognized in its essential belonging to the essence of beyng, yet such recognizability is indeed prepared through the knowledge, pertaining to the historicality of being, that the quantitative dominates all beings. The reason it does nevertheless not appear as beyng is that representation, in which the essence of the quantitative is grounded, as such adheres immediately and constantly to beings and sequesters itself against beyng or, which amounts to the same thing, at best allows beyng "validity" as the most general (of representation), the emptiest.
Grasped historically, the gigantic as such is primarily the incalculable. The latter, however, is the announcement (ungraspable from the overly close nearness) of beyng itself, but in the form of the plight of the lack of a sense of plight.
Why does the gigantic not know overabundance? It is because the gigantic arises out of the hiding of a lack and gives this hiding the semblance of an untrammeled publication of a possession. Since the gigantic never knows over-abundance (what is in-exhaustibly unexhausted), it must also be denied the simple. For essential simplicity arises out of fullness and its domination. The "simplicity" of the gigantic is mere semblance, which is supposed to hide the emptiness. Yet by instituting all these semblances, the gigantic is unique and is in accord with its own essence.
71. The gigantic
According to the tradition (d. Aristotle on ποσόν), the essence of the quantum lies in its divisibility into parts which remain the same as it in kind.
What then is quantitas? What is the quantitative? And in what sense is the gigantic the quantitative as something qualitative? Can that be grasped on the basis of the traditional determination of the quantum?
"Parts of that same kind," and "division" [Teilung], division and distribution [Ein-teilung] (calculating—λόγος, distinguishing—gathering).
Distribution and instituting [Ein-richtung]?