some hegemony goes without saying, impervious to questioning. But anarchic isomorphism does not fit with the indifferent produced by the archic reference. They clash monstrously, which describes our site. The baseless and the illusory base hold us in their double bind, which describes our pathos.
What is, then, when the struggle for the standards that archai were—ultimate referents, normative foci, hegemonic fantasms—dies away? What comes to be is the possibility that the struggle of discordant contrariness can openly flare up, the event whose essence is the tragic.
Under the isomorphic that we are living, knowledge {savoir} has collapsed into knowledges {connaissances}, and these, in turn, into information. Thinking will find knowledge again—and everdayness, a self—by placing itself underneath the double bind of the ultimates conjoined in the event.
On the other that is being: what the diremption reveals
“Being and beings by no means allow themselves to be distinguished immediately because in no way do they relate immediately to one another. (BzP 477)
Once the normative difference in which beings would “relate” immediately to “being” has been recognized as the theticism of beingness, varied over the centuries cum ira et studio, then differing itself becomes thinkable. We have already seen some of its elements: the contrariness, without common genus, of self and ego; the gap between the singular and the particular; the denial that promoted all illusorily subsuming fantasms; the technological isomorphism in which the normative difference between a posited law and the disparate sup-posed by it collapses. What remains is briefly to spell out that historial differend, and see how it points toward a more originary discordance. We do this in order to answer the question: What does the diremption reveal?
One must remember first of all that in Heidegger, the vast suspicion toward anything that has passed as an ultimate authority harbors a significance for manifestation. The destructive exercise serves to reveal us as bearers of a potential that lies ahead of us; it does not show ourselves to be the victims of a mystification behind us. To recognize the broken hegemonies under which the West has grown up means to us that it is possible to retain the differend as such, to sustain it. Thus to catch a glimpse of what the diremption reveals, it suffices to listen to the one—the historial “they”—who speaks in the name of what the French so aptly call une idée arrêtée, the halt decreed to institute the rule of one or another ideality. What does this metaphysician, that is in each one of us, say? The genealogy of fantasms shows what—this metaphysician speaks of everything and nothing, with the name of the idea wanting to mean everything, but the halt, lʼarrêt, saying nothing (except a libidinal investment in order45). What is then glimpsed is a condition freed of halts and decrees, of all epéchein closing off questioning, a condition in which being, as it does not subsume them under a name, does not relate in any immediate way to phenomena. It is this non-relationship that diremption reveals. What does this mean?