135
FINK: ... of what holds ...
HEIDEGGER: ... visible. The fragment does not say that one develops out of everything combined, but that the unifying ἕν becomes visible in the allness, from out of the allness. Is it a question here only of the ratio cognoscendi [order of knowledge] or the ratio essendi [order of being]?
FINK: Of the ratio essendi.
HEIDEGGER: But how? We understand the ἐξ ἐνὸς πάντα, but the ἐκ πάντων ἓν has not occurred up till now.
FINK: We already came across ἐκ πάντων ἓν in the relationship of goods and gold. The πάντα as the many in entirety, which stand fastened by ἕν, refer to the one. All ὄντα are already from the beginning held in the care, in the guard, of ἕν.
HEIDEGGER: I cannot follow that through sufficiently.
FINK: The words συμφερόμενον διαφερόμενον [concord and discord] sound very hard. The phrase brings us up short, which is its express intention. But at the same time, it is taken back in the συνάψιες.
HEIDEGGER: The reference of πάντα and ἕν must be specified differently than the reference of ἕν and πάντα. To be sure, both references belong together, but as distinguished. The ἐξ ἑνος πάντα is not equal to ἐκ πάντων ἓν, but it is the same in the sense of belonging together. The difficulty that has shown itself again and again in the course of the seminar lies in the methodological starting point, the justification of which I certainly do not want to contest. So long as one does not have λόγος in view, it is hard to get through the text, and Heraclitus reads with difficulty. For that reason, it seems to me that one must take Fr. 1, which is regarded as the beginning of Heraclitus' writing, as also the basis for the beginning of the explication of Heraclitus. With the phrase ἐκ πάντων ἓν, the question we have posed in reference to the relatedness of ἕν and πάντα comes into play again, namely, how the relatedness is to he determined, if it is neither a matter of a making nor of a casting of light. What is the basic character of πάντα as πάντα in ἕν, πάντα as reined in by ἕν? Only when one sees this aspect can one determine the ἐκ πάντων ἕν. συνάψιες is probably the key to understanding this.
PARTICIPANT: If we may also consider the context of Fr. 10, we find the word συνῆψεν [concord] in it.
HEIDEGGER: There it says that nature brought about the first concord by the union of opposites. The fragment does not, however, say that the ἕν occurs out of the many.
FINK: I would understand συνάψιες verbally.
HEIDEGGER: I lay great importance on the word συνάψιες in reference to Fr. 26. Here, everything is still dark. I am concerned only to see what is questionable in the matter, if one avoids operating from the beginning on the level of things.