I: It seems to me no answer to this question is incumbent on us. Nor would an answer help us, because what matters is to see appearance as the reality of presence in its essential origin.

J: If you succeed with that, then you are thinking of appearance in the Greek way. and at the same time no longer in the Greek way. You said—at least this was the sense of what you said—that we leave the sphere of the subject-object relation behind us when thinking enten into the experience just mentioned, in which the real origin of appearance—dare we say—itself appears?

I: Hardly. But you are touching on something essential. For in the source of appearance, something comes toward man that holds the two-fold of presence and present beings.

J: That two-fold has always already offered itself to man, although its nature remained veiled.

I: Man, to the extent he is man, listens to this message.

J: And that happens even while man gives no particular attention to the fact that he is ever listening already to that message.

I: Man is used for hearing the message.

J: This you called a while ago: man stands in a relation.

I: And the relation is called hermeneutical because it brings the tidings of that message.

J: This message makes the claim on man that he respond to it ...

I: ... to listen and belong to it as man.

J: And this is what you call being human, if you here still admit the word "being."

I: Man is the message-bearer of the message which the twofold's unconcealment speaks to him.

J: As far as I am able to follow what you are saying, l sense