and releasement is said to shelter in itself the nature of thinking, whereas things themselves do not think.
Teacher: Evidently things are things through the regioning of that-which-regions as an earlier conversation on the abiding of the pitcher in the expanse of that-which-regions showed. However, the regioning of that-which-regions does not cause and effect things, as little indeed as that-which-regions effects releasement. That-which-regions in its regioning is neither the horizon of releasement; nor is it the horizon of things, whether we experience them only as objects or take them as "things-in-themselves" and in addition to objects.
Scholar: What you now say seems to me so decisive that I would like to try fixing it in scholarly terminology. Of course I know that such terminology not only freezes thought, but at the same time also renders it ambiguous with just that ambiguity which unavoidably adheres to ordinary terminology.
Teacher: After that scholarly reservation, you shouldn't hesitate to speak in a scholarly manner.
Scholar: As you state it, the relation of that-which-regions to releasement is neither a connection of cause to effect, nor the transcendental-horizonal relation. To state it still more briefly and more generally: the relation between that-which-regions and releasement, if it can still be considered a relation, can be thought of neither as ontic nor as ontological . . .
Teacher: . . . but only as regioning.
Scientist: Similarly, also, the relation between that-which-regions and the thing is neither a connection of cause to