history-necessitates that this very same question of being be asked in a fundamentally different way. However, this necessitating cannot originate from within metaphysical thinking itself since this thinking is totally consolidated in itself, and in its own way autocratically sticks to itself and, therefore, can only entangle itself more self-seekingly in its own way of questioning. The history of metaphysics, the manner in which in this history the question of being increasingly and decisively passes by being in its inquiry, the more the questioner (man as subject) with certainty depends on himself and arranges all beings exclusively as a 'producible vis-à-vis' (object) (the world as "image", as an imageable, representable producible view), all this is a single "proof" that the question of being is entangled in the jointure of metaphysics. The differentiation between being and beings is so worn out that it becomes tantamount to effacing what therein is differentiated - tantamount to superficializing "being" to mere wording of an empty "content" - and all this because beings that are not at all thought out in their beingness "are" everything that can count as beings in the sense of a makable actuality.

The necessitating for asking the question of being in a different way cannot be awakened and aroused out of, and through, metaphysics. Rather, the whole of metaphysics can become the impetus for becoming mindful of a distress that necessitates the question of being. However, even that requires that the whole of the enduring sway of metaphysics in its present shape as the jointure of the openness of beings as such is already experienced and overcome.

[G337] From where should this overcoming come, if not from that which enjoins and determines the jointure of the openness of beings as such? And what else is this but be-ing? The same be-ing that discharges beings as such into predominance till being is forgotten can wrest this preeminence away from beings. Meanwhile, the history of that discharging is of a different kind than the history of the wresting away that is perhaps already commencing. In this history, be-ing itself must obtain a unique mastery, which does not mean at all that be-ing publicly reveals this mastery and reveals itself in this mastery like the predominance of beings that are abandoned by being. Publicness is that gestalt of the openness of beings as such wherein any being is immediately accessible to anyone, even though this accessibility is mostly an unrecognized illusion.

What happens then, when beings and the beingness (the a priori) that is always appended to them lose their preeminence? Then there is be-ing.