things that lack any synthesis {as well as the unification that comes from synthesis}?

There is nothing to be synthesized {in these cases}, and so we cannot speak of “being” [Sein] when something-is-together-with versus “nonbeing” [Nichtsein] when something-is-not-together-with—the way we can say, for instance, that being-together-with pertains to white in relation to a piece of wood, or incommensurability pertains to the diagonal of a square.

Similarly uncovering and covering-over occur differently in the present case [of the non-synthetic] than in the previous case [of the synthetic].

b22–33: Uncoveredness and coveredness in non-synthetic beings. The crux of the chapter.³⁸Just as “uncoveredness” is different {in ἀσύνθετα}, so too is being.In the case of non-synthetic beings, “uncoveredness” {“and coveredover-ness”—this phrase makes absolutely no sense in the text, and I am convinced it was not written by Aristotle but inserted by a scribe} entails just touching and addressing oneself to³⁹ the unhidden.

{Affirmation—attribution of something to something—is not the same as purely and simply addressing oneself to it.}

In these cases {of non-synthetics}, not-apprehending is the same as not-touching.

Being-deceived is not possible in uncovering a pure “whatness” in itself {Being-deceived does not pertain to “whatness.” It can occur only if one’s gaze falls} on something that is just incidentally present {with the “whatness”}.

It is the same with whatever is there in-and-of-itself without any synthesis. In that case, too, it is impossible to be deceived.

Moreover, all these things are just there in the manner of simple, constant already-there-ness, without any “not yet” or “a moment ago,” for if that were ever the case, things that are simply there would necessarily come to be and pass away.

But being⁴⁰ does not come to be or pass away; because if it did, it would have to come to be from something {i.e., being would be derived from a being}.

38.[Heidegger provides this note in Moser (p. 375.20–21), and in the Weiss typescript (p. 92.26).]

39. [Addressing oneself to it in a simple “utterance.” Aristotle contrasts κατάφασις (“affirmation,” attributing something to something) and φάσις (from φημί, a simple “utterance”), which can be taken as equivalent to the Latin dictio. Heidegger translates the latter as Ansprechen, “straightforwardly addressing oneself to something” or “simply referring to it.”]

40. [Here Heidegger uses Sein to translate Aristotle’s τὸ ὄν.]