overcomes the chôrismos, not, as it were, by throwing a bridge between beyng (beinghood) and beings—as if there were two present-at-hand riverbanks needing to be bridged—but by transforming beyng and beings at the same time into their simultaneity” (GA 65: 14/14, tm). There is no separation between beyng and beings, there is no chôrismos, and thus no transcendence in the Platonic sense. The between as space of interpenetration and co-belonging allows the seemingly rigid oppositions of metaphysics to sink back into their groundless ground, exposing them as based upon a retreat before exposure itself, the sensible/super-sensible distinction included.

Relieved of the oppositional scaffolding of metaphysics, Dasein is no longer “separated” from the groundless ground. In discussing the earth, we were led to consider this groundless ground in terms of the abyss and such is the case here, for the “abyss” is the “site of the moment for the ‘between,’ and Da-sein must be grounded as this ‘between’” (GA 65: 387/306). Dasein grounds itself upon this groundless ground, bears it, and in so doing, is itself the between. “Da-sein . . . essences as the grounding ground, as the ‘between’ and ‘middle’ of beings themselves” (GA 65: 223/174, tm). But more than this, Dasein is not only the between of beings, it is likewise “the between between beyng and beings” (GA 65: 343/271, tm). Once again, if we think we have got hold of the between by finding it between two presences, we have lost it. Thus it is still not enough to think Dasein as between beyng and beings—there must be a between between this as well, and Heidegger makes this clear, noting that “a between essences between us and beyng and that this between itself belongs to the essencing of beyng” (GA 65: 368/290, tm). In the Contributions to Philosophy, Da-Sein is released from the oppositions of metaphysics and ultimately forms the space of relation between beings, being, and beyng, a space of encounter and response (Ent-gegnung, GA 65: 454/358).

The between is thus the site of relations, not of presences. What stands here is not something integral and completed; it lies instead between “abandonment and hinting,” the abandonment of beyng and the hint of its arrival (GA 65 311/246, tm), between “call and belonging [Zuruf und Zugehörigkeit],” the call of beyng and its hearkening response (GA 65: 380/300). The between reveals the relational character of Dasein.

b. The Dimension

Heidegger considers the dimension in the context of Hölderlin’s late poem, “In lovely blueness. . . .” The situation presented is one of a life that has become sheer toil. Hölderlin asks whether in such conditions it is still imaginable that a person would find their life worth living:

Page generated by FourfoldSteller.EXE