PATHMARKS
again by others. Does it not lie already in the meaning of "working factors" that they in each case co-determine actuality, the totalitarian character of work pertaining to everything actual, only inasmuch as they themselves are already determined by it? Certainly, concepts are "there for the purpose of comprehending." Yet the modem representing of the actual, an objectifying within which our grasping comprehending moves in advance, everywhere remains an attack that seizes upon the actual insofar as the latter is challenged to show itself within the perspective of our representing grasp. Within the sphere of this modem, grasping comprehending, the consequence of such challenging is that actuality as it is grasped passes over - quite unexpectedly, and in a way that initially goes unheeded for a long time - into a counterattack. This counterattack suddenly, and despite Kant, catches modem natural science by surprise, and such science must first approach and secure its knowledge of this surprising event by way of specific discoveries within the scientific manner of proceeding.
Heisenberg's relation of indeterminacy can certainly never be directly derived from Kant's transcendental interpretation of our cognitive knowledge of physical nature. Yet nor can that relation ever be represented, i.e., thought, without this representing initially reverting to the transcendental realm of the subject-object relation. Only when this has occurred can the question begin concerning the essential provenance of our objectifying of beings, i.e., concerning the essence of our "grasping."
In your case and in mine, however, our concern is not only with concepts of a science, but with fundamental words like Gestalt, domination, representation, power, will, value, security; with presence (presencing) and with the nothing, which as absence interrupts ("nullifies") presence, without ever annihilating it. Rather, insofar as the nothing "nullifies," it confirms itself as a distinctive presence, veiling [231 {GA 9: 403}] itself as such presence. In the fundamental words listed, there prevails a saying that is other than that of scientific assertions. To be sure, metaphysical representation too is familiar with concepts. Yet these are distinct from scientific concepts not only with regard to their degree of universality. Kant was the first to see this with full clarity (Critique of Pure Reason, A 843, B 871). Metaphysical concepts are in essence other in kind insofar as that which they grasp and comprehend is in an originary sense the same as this very grasping. For this reason, it is much less a matter of indifference within the realm of fundamental words of thinking whether one forgets them or whether one persistently continues to use them unexamined, and above all to use them where we are supposed to step out of the zone in which the "concepts" to which you refer say what is authoritative, namely, in the zone of consummate nihilism.
304