that the ἀληθές, the unconcealed, is precisely what is not-forgotten. It is so, by all means, but only under the presupposition that we think of forgetting in terms of ἀλήθεια and not substitute for the essence of λήθη the "forgetting" which is later understood as inadvertence, a kind of psychic-subjective comportment.
Yet the "unconcealed" cannot simply be identified with the unforgotten, because the "unforgotten" may be something false and untrue and consequently is not by necessity something true, ἀληθές. But does this not also apply to the unconcealed as much as to the unforgotten, namely that it can be something false as well as something true? Besides, the so-called "false" must surely be something unconcealed and therefore would be true. The "unconcealed" also appears in the guise of mere semblance. What then distinguishes that unconcealed we call "the true"?
Hereby we are directing our gaze onto nexuses and abysses Greek thinking did not avoid, though we ourselves can hardly still surmise them, for we unwittingly mix into these necessary questions our ordinary understanding of the essence of truth, i.e., truth in the sense of "correctness" and "certitude." We can now see only this much, that mere unconcealedness, in which even something "false" may stand, does not exhaust the essence of ἀλήθεια; spoken more prudently, up to now we have not thought the essence of ἀλήθεια exhaustively. In fact through what we have just observed, i.e., in view of the essential relation of ἀλήθεια to λήθη (withdrawing concealment), a primordial essential moment of ἀλήθεια manifests itself, one that we have not yet mentioned and that is by no means expressed in the translation "unconcealedness," at all events not as long as we think "unconcealedness" in a careless and indeterminate way simply as the absence and elimination of concealedness.
The unconcealed is originarily what is saved from withdrawing concealment and hence is secured in dis-closure and as such is uneluded. The unconcealed does not come into presence indeterminately, as if the veil of concealment had simply been lilted. The unconcealed is the un-absent, over which a withdrawing concealment no longer holds sway. The coming into presence is itself an emerging, that is, a coming forth into unconcealedness, in such a way that the emerged and the unconcealed are assumed into unconcealedness, saved by it and secured in it "Ἀληθές," the "unconcealed," reveals its essence to us now more clearly precisely from its relation to λήθη. The unconcealed is what has entered into the tranquility of pure self-appearance and of the "look." The unconcealed is what is secured thereby. The clarification of the essence of the counter-essence, λήθη as withdrawing concealment, first allows the essence of dis-closure to be brought into the light.