127
session is also to be understood from out of this: ἕν is the re-latedness [Ver-hältnis] of πάντα.28 Re-lating [Ver-halten] and holding mean first of all tending, keeping, and yielding in the widest sense. The content of this holding is fulfilled for us in the course of time, that is, in passage through the fragments of Heraclitus. Mr. Fink has repeatedly alluded to the fact that the determinations of ἕν, as lightning, sun, seasons, and fire are no images, but rather characteristics that characterize the holding and the way and manner that τὰ πάντα are for ἕν, and which characterize ἕν itself as the unifying, gathering ...
FINK: ... and discharging. We must contrast this relatedness of ἕν and πάντα against the naive conception according to which ἕν is thought like a depository, like a pot in which all πάντα are. One cannot apply this ontically familiar encompassing relation to the reference of ἕν and πάντα.
HEIDEGGER: In Southern German, Topf [pot] means Hafen [port]. That is the same word as ἅπτεσθαι [to be brought together]. The word "hawk" [Habicht] also belongs here, that is, the bird which grasps. Language is much more thoughtful and open than we are. But probably this will be forgotten in the next centuries. Nobody knows whether one will ever come back to this again.
FINK: In the last session, we began to consider Fr. 26, and to emphasize some elements, {206} namely the peculiar situation of humans as fire kindling beings placed between night and light.
HEIDEGGER: For me, the way in which the fragment is quoted by Clement already creates a difficulty. When I read the context of Clement, it is unclear to me in which connection and out of which motive he cites Fr. 26. There it says: ὅσα δ´ αὖ περὶ ὕπνου λέγουσι, τὰ αὐτὰ χρὴ καὶ περὶ θανάτου ἐξακούειν. ἑκάτερος γὰρ δηλοῖ τὴν ἀπόστασιν τῆς ψυχῆς, ὃ μὲν μᾶλλον, ὃ δὲ ἧττον, ὅπερ ἐστὶ καὶ παρὰ Ἡρακλείτου λαβεῖν.29 The first sentence says in translation, "One must also hear the same about death as what is said about sleep." How this text should be connected with Fr. 26 is incomprehensible to me. I myself can find no connection. Clement's text is unintelligible to me in connection with Fr. 26 because nothing is to be found in the fragment about ἀπόστασις τῆς ψυχῆς [departure of the soul]. Clement's text is a completely different one than that of the fragment. Another difficulty for me is the following. Heraclitus says that humans kindle a light in the night when eyesight is extinguished. Is that only to be thought in such a way that a human kindles a light in the dark, either with a match or by pressing a button?
FINK: I would suppose that the basic situation, mentioned in the fragment, is the human situation between night and light. A human is not just like other living beings between night and light; rather, he is a living being who stands in a relationship to night and light and who is not