and the subjective are now equally self-evident. [G137] The total lack of questioning as the disguise of powerlessness.
We ask anew, why is there the 'either-or' between being as contrivance and man as the enowned?
Can there not be a part-part relation, being, in part a contrivance, in part "something" of its own accord? Wherefrom this possibility of a division?
Why be-ing and man at all?
Let us leave everything to "beings" ! And this leaving — is it not somehow a decision?
Could then something like a necessity of decision be in play? And can this necessity count as absolute or only count under the condition that man is he himself and thereby he is the one who ventures and thus is the one who breaks through — be it as the one who flees, be it as the one who attacks — or be it even as the one who lets things be in accord with being's 'letting-be'?
'Dis-humanization' of 'beings in the whole' from out of 'dis-humanizing' man which is grounded in positing man as animal; man's forgottenness of being and consequently the self-unfolding of being's abandonment of beings.
To be lost in questioning through which man is transferred to transforming his ownmost is not retreating of the self into the circumstantial. And yet how is he to be lost in questioning? Does comporting "humanly" (mean?) the 'what for' of comporting itself and is this comporting also "human"? The grip into 'the over' — whereunto as 'the over? [Unto the] abground: something that is 'in-between'! Be-ing!
Having become rigid unto what is without the clearing (a being), everything "is" merely "a being".
[G138] There is no one thing that belongs to be-ing; be-ing is not even approachable through a being as such.
And where a being seems to open itself up to a being, as in the animal there everything is overlaid by the mere environing, which is called such, because it can never 'give' anything to a being that is incapable of 'taking'