β) The Counter-Striving of Need and Discipline in Having Sprung Forth. Outline of the Essential Structure of What Has Purely Sprung Forth
What has purely sprung forth, however, is not determined solely by the origin, which is in itself doubly directed, but also by the manner in which its having sprung forth remains. The origin is indeed what comes first—to the extent that, on the one hand, without it there would be nothing that had sprung forth at all, and on the other hand, within the pure origin the commencement embraces that which is coming by seizing it in advance. Birth and ray of light are indeed capable of “most” (line 50); yet “much” (line 49) is also effected by need and discipline. To these there corresponds all that is referred to in the third strophe in terms of the diverting of the river’s original direction.
In need there lies on each occasion compulsion, constraint, impossibility of escape, and constriction, in such a way that need thereby compels a decision, or else a refraining from decision, an avoidance that necessitates pressing forward upon new paths. Sprung forth in the sense of being-in-having-sprung-forth means withstanding such need. Seen in terms of the origin, need is something that falls to us [ein Zufallendes]—yet not accidentally [zufällig]—for need, as necessitating, always creates a turning in each case for that which has sprung forth, thereby lending determinacy to its attempt to merely flow away. Need [Not] is the ground of necessity [Notwendigkeit],[10] provided that we comprehend it in general in its essential belonging to that which has purely sprung forth. Need, however, turns not only against one of the powers of the origin each time, but always against the origin itself, against both powers in the unity of their own proper conflict.
Within having sprung forth, there operates—together with need—discipline. In contrast to need as compulsion and constraint, discipline brings an inner harnessing and binding into the very figuration that effects and creates. Like need, discipline too comes to encounter the origin, yet it does not necessitate, as does need, but precisely frees the excessive will of the origin in enjoining it into the law and in explicitly assimilating such law to itself as what is indeed its ownmost.
Discipline too runs counter to the origin in its entirety. Yet just as the powers of the origin intrinsically strive counter to one another, so also do need and discipline, provided we comprehend need as outer discipline and discipline as inner need, where ‘outer’ refers to that which is without freedom and untethered, and ‘inner’ to that which is free and provides binding. Such birth and ray of light—need and discipline that intrinsically strive counter to one another—are, however, in conflict with one another within the entire being of that which has