effect, nor the transcendental-horizonal relation; and hence neither an ontic nor an ontological relation.

Scholar: But evidently, the relation of that-which-regions to the thing also is not regioning with respect to man's nature.

Teacher: What are we then to call the relation of that-which-regions to the thing, if that-which-regions lets the thing abide in itself?

Scientist: It determines the thing, as thing.

Scholar: Therefore, it is best called the determining.

Scientist: But determining is not making and effecting; nor is it rendering possible in the sense of the transcendental . . .

Teacher: . . . but only the determining.

Scientist: We must first learn to think what determining is . . .

Teacher: . . . by learning to become aware of the nature of thinking . . .

Scholar: . . . that is by waiting upon determining and regioning with respect to man.

Scientist: Nevertheless, such naming is also of some help even now in bringing a certain clarity into this variety of relations. Still, precisely that relation remains undefined whose characterization concerns me most of all. I mean the relation of man to the thing.

Scholar: Why are you so persistent about this relation?

Scientist: Earlier we began by illuminating the relation between the ego and the object by way of the factual relation of thought in the physical sciences to nature. The relation between the ego and the object, the often mentioned