Yet here it may and must be asked: which interpretation is the true one? The one that simply takes over the perspective of its understanding because it has fallen into it, and because it offers itself as current and self-evident? Or the interpretation that puts the customary perspective into question from the bottom up, because it could be and in fact is the case that this perspective does nothing to indicate that which is to be seen?

Certainly—giving up the ordinary and going back into questioning interpretation is a leap. Only one who takes the right running start can leap. Everything is decided by this run, for it means that we ourselves actually ask the questions again, and that we, in these questions, first create the perspectives. However, this does not happen in wavering arbitrariness or in relying on a system that has been set forth as the norm. Instead, it happens in and from historical necessity, from the urgency of historical Dasein. [135|185]

Λέγειν and νοεῖν, gathering and apprehending, are an urgent need and an act of violence against the overwhelming, but at the same time always and only for it. Thus, the violence-doers must time and again shrink back from this use of violence, and yet they cannot back down. In this will to conquer that at the same time shrinks back, at moments the possibility must flare up that the conquest of the overwhelming can be fully and most certainly fought out if the concealment of Being—the emerging sway, which in itself essentially unfolds as λόγος, as the gatheredness of the conflicting—is simply preserved, and thus, in a certain way, every possibility of appearing is withheld. This audacity [which in truth is the highest recognition]⁸³ belongs to the violence-doing of the uncanniest: to overwhelm the appearing sway by with holding all openness toward it,

83. In parentheses in the 1953 edition.