that these notes are meant to demonstrate that everything was “already” thought from early on with the same clarity and decisiveness. Everything was thought, but darkly, and above all, while tearing back and forth in great despair and loneliness, in some cases in beautiful brightness and calm.
But this too must always be taken into account when marking the way, that it is perhaps only a matter of naming a moment [Augenblick] in the destiny of beyng, a call of beyng that demands, but does not force, a corresponding. What remains uncertain is whether one of these reflections ever corresponds to the call of the oblivion of Being; this alone is the urgency: that this moment in the destiny of beyng not be ignored. But when marking the path, it does not at all have to do with emphasizing the originality of my thinking; also, [223] contrasting this thinking against contemporary schools of thought is entirely meaningless from the outset; even when those schools of thought are correct; because it does not have to do with a distinction between Jaspers and Heidegger or with the difference between Sartre and Heidegger; rather, it has to do with whether we all, and others whom we do not know, are prepared to experience the withdrawal of the truth of beyng—which comes out of Being itself—as beyng itself in its essence and to preserve this thoughtfully and thus to stand firm against beyng in its essence.
8. Experience of the oblivion of Being
1920: a clearer experience of the oblivion of Being. Likewise: Being—qua οὐσία with παρουσία, the present—and thus “time.” But “time” not in Aristotle’s sense, nor in Augustine’s.
As yet, time has never been a theme for metaphysics, while metaphysics itself now falls into the horizon and domain of “time.”
But the experience is not completely transparent; in fact, it does not understand what breaks through there [?].
9. The basic experience
In the call of the oblivion of Being, i.e., of its truth, i.e., of how Being and beings “essentially occur” in their difference and how these [Being and beings] “essentially occur”—all thinking became dubious due to the fact that all this is veiled and obscure in the call—but at the same time in such a way that in the call the destinal spoke and did so in this way: instead of just eliminating all previous thinking (in the manner of Descartes and Husserl), the appropriation and, indeed, the appropriation of this oblivion became urgent! from here: Ἀ-λήθεια!