any speaking of the gods and even any claim to
understand beings as a whole. If the uniqueness of the adoption of humanity into the preservation of the truth of beyng corresponds to the uniqueness of the beginning out of the event of its inceptuality, then to the gods, if and in whatever manner they “are,” an immediate relation to beyng is denied. But if they would comport themselves to beings and especially to human beings, then the gods require that the clearing of beings, as beings, be steadfastly preserved, built, and disposed in historical humanity. In another way and according to the respective character of being, this still holds for every domain of beings. In the properness of the historial human being, there eventuates to the previously beingless (beings) |
|
The eventuation |
into beyng. To the eventuation there unfolds the
uniqueness of the essence of the human being, as
that essence is understood with respect to the history
of beyng. The truth of the uniqueness is accessible
only in the experience of beyng and only according
to this experience. A consideration can
very well fix two waypoints for the meditation on
the uniqueness of the appropriated adoption of the
human being: on the one hand, the arrogation to a
unique being must correspond to the uniqueness
of the beginning in the event, and, on the other
hand, historical humans, in meditation on the history
of beyng, experience the uniqueness of their
adoption by the event into beyng. Furthermore,
they can at least comment on this experience
through the uniqueness of the destiny which has
claimed only them, human beings, for the word
and has led them into language. Out of this uniqueness
of the belonging to beyng must arise every
destiny that is disposed to liberate the experiencing
of the eventuation of beingless (beings) into beyng,
liberate it toward knowing, acting, forming, grounding
and building, granting and releasing. The uniqueness of the belonging to the preservation of the truth of beyng is experienced by historial |