109
"cosmological," and you speak of cosmic moments and cosmological entities.
FINK: One could bluntly conceive the relationship of gods and humans, which has been formulated in the dark formula "to live death, to die life," and say that the gods win the substance of their lives out of the death of humans, as humans win their life out of the death of animals they consume. To live the death of another would then be a process, a perpetual style of the process of life. We cannot connect any meaning with the idea that the gods need the life of mortals like they need the sacrificial animals of mortals in early religion. If one wants to disregard the blunt idea, one must turn from a mere cosmic relationship between gods and humans to the cosmological reference of humans and gods. Gods and humans are not only like other living things; rather, they are both determined by an understanding relationship to themselves and to each other. The understanding relationship does not encapsulate the gods by themselves. The gods do not refer only to themselves; rather, they can {177} experience their own perpetual being only in reference to the changeable being and being bound to death of humans. In order to understand their own perpetual being in their self-understanding, they must understandingly hold themselves dose to the death of humans. Understood thus, holding dose is not to be understood as ontic but as ontological or cosmological. Vice versa, humans, who relate to their own wasting away, must understandingly hold themselves dose to the perpetual being of the gods. This ontological understanding contains an analogy to the original relatedness of ἕν and πάντα.
HEIDEGGER: If you reject the cosmic relationship as ontic and speak of a cosmological relationship instead of an ontological one, then you use the word "cosmological" in a special sense. In your use of the word "cosmological," you do not mean the common meaning of cosmology as the doctrine of the cosmos. But what, then, do you have in view?
FINK: The holding [verhaltende] ἕν, which contains all πάντα, and not the cosmos, for instance, as a system of spatial points.
HEIDEGGER: Thus, you do not use the word "cosmology" in the sense of natural science. It only concerns me to see the justification on account of which you speak of cosmology. You have your grounds, because you do not say "ontic" and "ontological," but rather "cosmic" and "cosmological."
FINK: The criterion lies there, where you yourself criticize ontology.
HEIDEGGER: You speak about the relatedness of ἕν and πάντα as a world-relationship.
FINK: I do not thereby understand it as a relationship of two terms. I think the ἕν as the one which lets everything arise as many in the sense of πάντα, but which takes them hack again.