means, first of all, a running through and a going through the entire body in order to come then to a distinguishing and a decision. From this we already observe that the διαγιγνώσκειν is not only a distinguishing. We must, therefore, say: If everything that is were smoke, noses would have the possibility to go through them.
PARTICIPANT: The distinguishing of entities would then happen by means of the sense of smell.
HEIDEGGER: But can the senses distinguish at all? This question will still occupy us later with Heraclitus. But how does Heraclitus come to smoke? The answer is not difficult to find. Where there is smoke, there is also fire.
FINK: If Heraclitus speaks of smoke in Fr. 7, then it means that the smoke makes ὄψις [sight] more difficult in reference to πάντα τὰ ὄντα, that, nevertheless, in passing through the concealing smoke a διαγιγνώσκειν is possible by way of ῥῖνες [the nostrils]. We must also observe that Heraclitus does not say something like: If everything that is becomes smoke. Rather, he says: If everything which is would become smoke.
HEIDEGGER: We must understand the γίνεσθαι [coming into existence] in γένοιτο [would become] as "coming-forth." If everything that is would come forth as smoke ... In the fragment, the πάντα τὰ ὄντα are straight away allied with a διάγνωσις. In the background, however, they are spoken of in respect to a character that is connected with fire.
FINK: You bring smoke into connection with fire. Smoke stands in relation to the nose. That would mean that the nose also stands over the smoke in a relation to fire. However, is it not precisely the ὄψις which is the most fire-like in meaning? I would suppose that the sun like nature of sight can receive the firey more than the nose. Additionally, smoke is something derivative from fire. Smoke is, so to speak, the shadow of fire. One must say: If everything which is would become smoke, as that which is derivative from fire, then noses could cognize what is by means of resistance. However, I would suppose that ὄψις. rather than the nose, is allied with fire.
HEIDEGGER: Nevertheless, I believe that something else is meant by the nose and smoke. Let us look at Fr. 67. There it says, among other things: ἀλλοιοῦται δὲ ὅκωσπερ (πῦρ), ὁπόταν συμμιγῇ θυώμασιν, ὀνομάζεται καθ᾽ ἡδονὴν ἑκάστου. "But he changes just like fire which, when it is mixed with incense, is named according to the fragrance of ead1 one." In our context of meaning, the word we are concerned with is θύωμα, incense. Depending on the incense, which is mixed with fire, a fragrance is spread by which the fragrance is then named. It is important here that the smoke of fire can he variously fragrant. That means that the smoke itself has an inherent manifold of distinctions, so that it can be cognized with the nose as a specific this or that.