103
identified with ἕν and πάντα, but that they represent symbolically the relatedness of ἕν and πάντα. Immortal and mortal are not themselves cosmic moments that are separated and at the same time embraced like £v and πάντα. Rather both are cosmological beings who understand the whole, the gods from above and humans from below. If we want to speak here of an analogy, we must be clear that it is always thoroughly a matter of similarity by means of unsimilarity, whereby the unsimilarity is always greater. Talk about humans as imago dei [image of God] does not mean that a human is a mirror image of the Godhead and similar to the Godhead like a mirror image to the original image. A human is an image of God through the infinity of distance. We have no language for the purpose of addressing the relatedness of ἕν to τὰ πάντα. The ἕν lights up to us only in lightning, in sun, in the seasons, in fire. Fire, however, is not the phenomenal, but the unphenomenal fire, in the shine of which 1:a πάντα come forth to appearance.
Because we have no language to characterize the fundamental relatedness of lv and πάντα, and because we wish to keep πυρός τροπαί away from the traditional blunt schemes of thought, according to which an always extant original stuff changes its conditions or disguises itself in its forms of appearance, we have started out from Fr. 76, in which the fundamental relatedness of ἕν and πάντα is addressed in the formula, "to live the death of another." From there, we turned to Fr. 62"> in which the formula, "to live the death" and "to die the life" is said, not of fire, air, water, and earth, but of immortals and mortals. Application of that formula to gods and humans appears at first to stand closer to our human power of comprehension. The transition from Fr. 76 to Fr. 62 is no narrowing of a general cosmological reference to an anthroplogical-theological relationship. The anthropological-theological relationship is no reference of two kinds of beings, but rather the relationship of how the two different kinds of beings understand themselves and that which is. The gods understand their own perpetual being in reference to the death of humans. If the gods did not have before them the fall of humans and πάντα into time, could they live their life, which is never broken off, in blissful self-indulgence, and could they become aware of their divinity? Could ἕν, which is represented by the immortals, be by itself without the view of πάντα; could πάντα, which are represented by mortals and their understanding of being, be without knowing of the endlessness of πῦρ ἀείζωον? I would like to repeat again that the relationship of immortals to mortals is not to he equated with that of ἕν and πάντα. I was only concerned to point out that one can find an index to the relatedness of ἕν and πάντα in the intertwining relationship of gods and humans in their self-knowledge and knowledge of the other. Thus, it is a matter neither of a parallel nor of an analogy in the usual sense. All the fragments of Heraclitus' theology speak of god only like one could