98. The Beingless and Beings Dis-appropriation | 99
But the beingless is also essentially other and more than non-being; it is beings themselves, the not—that beings (i.e., as eventally appropriated) are.
Beinglessness is the disappropriation of beings—but disappropriation is not simply nihilation, for it is more essential and more inceptive than mere nihilation and destruction.
Disappropriation lets “stand” in the being-less.
But what does “standing” mean—constancy?
And letting-stand and beinglessness—do these not still, as disappropriation, belong to the event?
Such that disappropriation is only in the event.
Or is disappropriation the event as parting, and is the leave-taking still also that of disappropriation—?
In comparison with all this, the thought of the “nothing” is a harmless, easy one—a dependable metaphysical essence.
The beingless “is” the pre-inceptive and post-inceptive, not insofar as it has the character of inception, but rather in that it “becomes” [wird] a being only in inception and dis-integrates [entwird] in receding.
The beingless is knowable only in being and knowable only in the manner of an “essence.”
But here the innermost nihilating of being itself first reveals itself: that it is not in itself only concealment and refusal but rather, as receding, is disappropriation.
Disappropriation is the ultimacy of the intimacy of refusal; it is the parting, not only of beings, but the parting of their own essence.
From out of the beingless, then, a sharpened glimpse is afforded into the essential unfolding of being and of inception. {GA 70: 123}
Yet what does this mean for humanity and for divinity? The event of disappropriation?
That everything is thus essentially in being, and is thus untouchable by any annihilation of beings and by their devastation. Because we have for so long and so blindly hung onto the beings of metaphysics that the beingless and the parting seem to us precisely that which we have to block as soon as possible; for nihilism certainly seems, now, to be overflowing into infinity.
And yet, here, uniquely and for the first time, the uniqueness of being begins, its uncommonness not limiting its singularity but, rather, un-limiting into the pure essence of receding as the fulfillment of inception.