EARLY GREEK THINKING
What is present comes to presence when it surmounts the dis- of disorder, the ἀ- of ἀδικία. This ἀπό in ἀδικία corresponds to the κατά of χρεών. The transitional γάρ in the second clause strings the bow, connecting one end to the other.
So far we have tried to think what τὸ χρεών means only in terms of the reference of the fragment's second clause back to it, without asking about the word itself. What does τὸ χρεών mean? This first word in the fragment's text we are interpreting last because it is first with respect to the matter. What matter? The matter of the presencing of what is present. But to be the Being of beings is the matter of Being.
The grammatical form of this enigmatic, ambiguous genitive indicates a genesis, the emergence of what is present from presencing. Yet the essence of this emergence remains concealed along with the essence of these two words. Not only that, but even the very relation between presencing and what is present remains unthought. From early on it seems as though presencing and what is present were each something for itself. Presencing itself unnoticeably becomes something present. Represented in the manner of something present, it is elevated above whatever else is present and so becomes the highest being present. As soon as presencing is named it is represented as some present being. Ultimately, presencing as such is not distinguished from what is present: it is taken merely as the most universal or the highest of present beings, thereby becoming one among such beings. The essence of presencing, and with it the distinction between presencing and what is present, remains forgotten. The oblivion of Being is oblivion of the distinction between Being and beings.
However, oblivion of the distinction is by no means the consequence of a forgetfulness of thinking. Oblivion of Being belongs to the self-veiling essence of Being. It belongs so essentially to the destiny of Being that the dawn of this destiny rises as the unveiling of what is present in its presencing. This means that the history of Being begins with the oblivion of Being, since Being—together with its essence, its distinction from beings—keeps to itself. The distinction collapses. It remains forgotten. Although the two parties to the distinction, what is present and presencing, reveal themselves, they do not do so as