not wanting to explain, but rather understanding it as self-concealing concealment. Bringing the mystery to understanding is indeed an unveiling, but it is that unveiling that may be accomplished only in song, in the poetizing.
How does poetizing, then, in its essence relate to this task? What is its relation to the mystery, to what has purely sprung forth? The poetic unveiling of this mystery can surely only be one particular task for poetizing; yet it has to take on this task when it itself arrives at its own limits and thus takes on itself in what it is capable of. Thus we come to the third question, that concerning the essence of song, of poetizing.
c) Poetizing as Founding Beyng in the Grounding Opening Up of Intimacy
In one respect, the answer to this question already lies within what was said regarding the first and second points: Unveiling the mystery of what has purely sprung forth is the singular and authentic mandate for poetizing as such in general. The mystery is not just any enigma: The mystery is intimacy; yet the latter is beyng itself, the blessed enmity of conflicting powers, in which hostility there arises a decision concerning the gods and the Earth, human beings and all that they make. As the founding of beyng, poetizing is the grounding opening up of intimacy, which means nothing other than this: Poetizing is essentially a scarcely being allowed to unveil the mystery. This unveiling is not a special mandate for particular poets, in the sense that these poets would select a particular object for themselves. Rather, this mandate of scarcely being allowed to unveil the mystery of that which has purely sprung forth is the poetic mandate pure and simple—the only one. For this reason, everything else that calls itself poetry, and that in some sense also is this, always is so only in constantly remaining back behind this founding telling. If the essence of poetizing is to be determined, then poetizing, as with every essential creating of history, must always be comprehended in terms of its most extreme limit. The standards for determining its essence are to be found only where the creators exceed themselves beyond their ability. At such limits, the creators—and thus the poets too—know that there is no object for them, and that they must first found beyng. This is why the very question of what the object of art, poetizing, or philosophy is, is fundamentally inappropriate and the source of endless confusion. On the same grounds, not only can one not ‘fabricate’ the creators, one cannot set them any tasks either, nor even suggest such. One may not even expect of them that they ‘bring the psychic import of our time into poetic form,’ because this is an unpoetic suggestion