73
PARTICIPANT: ... our taking into view the relationship between lightning and τὰ πάντα.
HEIDEGGER: What follows after that?
PARTICIPANT: An explication of Fr. 11.
HEIDEGGER: But how do we come to this fragment? What is the pertinent motif that leads us from Fr. 64 to Fr. 11?
PARTICIPANT: What Heraclitus himself said gave us support for this transition. In Fr. 64, he speaks of τὰ πάντα, in Fr. 11 of πᾶν ἑρπετόν, which we have understood as πάντα ὡς ἑρπετά.
HEIDEGGER: But where lay the pertinent support for such a procedure? {GA 15: 122}
PARTICIPANT: Lightning (lightning bolt) led us to πλγή (blow).
HEIDEGGER: Besides, we saw a relevant connection between steering (οἰακίζει) and driving (νέμεται). Therefore, we took up first the relationship of lightning and τὰ πάντα, and finally, we took up the relationship of πληγή and πᾶν ἑρπετόν. Then we turned ...
PARTICIPANT: ... to the sun fragments.
HEIDEGGER: The explication began with the lightning or lightning bolt, then turned to the sun, and after that to πῦρ ἀείζωον. Later, we must specify more exactly the references of lightning, sun, and fire. What we have thematically treated up to this point has now become clear. But how does Mr. Fink proceed in explication of the fragments?
PARTICIPANT: The explication has become a problem for us.
HEIDEGGER: To what extent is the explication a problem? How would you characterize the procedure of Mr. Fink? The manner of his explication is by no means to be taken for granted, but is rather to be designated as venturesome.
PARTICIPANT: More has been said in the interpretation of the fragments than stands in them.
HEIDEGGER: The interpretation is hazardous. But Mr. Fink does not interpret arbitrarily; rather, he has his grounds for preferring the more difficult rendition and the hardness of the problem. What is the problem we are concerned with here? With what right does he prefer the more difficult rendition? Let us take Fr. 30 as an example.
PARTICIPANT: In each case we have preferred the more difficult rendition so that the subject matter comes to the fore. {GA 15: 123}
HEIDEGGER: What matter is that?
PARTICIPANT: The matter is already suggested in a manifold, perhaps most explicitly in reference to the time question.
HEIDEGGER: I do not allow talk about time now. Let us bracket being and time now. What matter is treated that should come to the fore? Think of Mr. Fink's introductory remarks.
PARTICIPANT: The matter of thinking.
HEIDEGGER: And the matter of thinking is? We must say that the