Heidegger notes regarding phusis that when we see the Van Gogh that “this is art” or the circling bird of prey “this is nature,” as though artness and natureness was present incarnate in the beings (Pa, phusis, 212).”  More to the point with Heraclitus, beingness emerges as the being conceals in its emergence, “the animal through whose swaying and hovering the free dimension of the open unfolds, and through whose singing and the tidings the call and the enchantment unfold, so that its bird essence whiles away and disperses in the open (72).”  Let’s relate this to thinking.

Kant said “to no thing belongs a predicate that contradicts it,” and so so called enlightened thinking basically goes about trying to find contradictions.  Heraclitus says “Emerging to self-concealing gives favor.”  Heidegger notes:

With this discovery of the contradiction, one obtains the longed-for superiority over the thinker: one finds him ‘illogical.’  One ‘finds much’ in that fact: and, indeed, one is only preoccupied with such finding.  In addition to this particular way of occupying oneself, there is yet another, whereby one keeps oneself busy finding things to be so and so.  One listens to concerts and one finds the violinist to be good, bad, or otherwise.  Everywhere ‘one finds.’  One listens to a lecture and finds it to be too technical.  One further finds that the speaker has a poor voice, and one finds more still.  In addition to this way of occupying oneself, one seeks after further opportunities where one can find things to be ‘so and so’; indeed, one finds that such bustling about is just ‘life,’ and naturally one finds it annoying when one is made aware of this activity of ‘occupying oneself and ‘finding.’  Or, what is even more fatal, one finds such awareness interesting and entertaining (84).

With one’s busying oneself with thinking logically (sensibly) as a contradiction avoiding disposition and pervasive assessment/evaluation outlook generally, the everyday relation to life is “one as arbiter.”  This is the life thinkers are not close to: “A criminal also thinks logically – indeed, perhaps even more ‘logically’ than some honest men … It is the ‘uneducated’ human being in particular who exhibit a special fondness for the use of the expression ‘logical (87).’”  You sometimes see, for instance those trained in the analytic philosophical tradition preoccupied with listing off fallacy names to evaluate an opponent’s argument in debate. In everyday thinking the understanding represents something ‘as’ something, e.g., the house ‘as’ possible lodging.  The two are bound together in this representation as reconcilable with one another.  Ordinary understanding can’t think the simultaneity of Heraclitus’ submerging and emerging, and so relinquishes its busyness like the bird mentioned earlier relinquishes its birdhood in nature stepping forth and the bird dissolving into the background.   

By contrast to conventional thinking, philosophical thinking occurs when everyday thinking comes to an aporia or block in the path and so comes to a standstill (87-88).  For example, we may be on our path according to the traditional definition marriage guiding perspective until we are halted by the fact that the supposedly good and holy traditional definition of marriage does violence to LGBTQ+ rights.  This can’t be absorbed and so is beyond being (epekeine tes ousias), and so the traditional guiding perspective definition is found defective and so we have a catalyst to deconstruct (the idea of the good – good that an imposter is being dismantled according to the criteria of justice) the imposter perspective to reveal a new, less violent perspective.  The traditional definition of marriage (guiding perspective) emerges “as” defective and so emerges as that which is to be concealed/submerging.  This contradiction halts our imagination but is a catalyst for more essential thinking.  Philosophical thinking is not a higher kind of conventional thinking, but requires a leap from the conventional to the essential path.  When conventional thinking breaks down, Philosophical thinking has the possibility to begin (90). The thinker is not close to life, as we saw with the example of Thales lost in thought and falling into the well to be laughed at by the Thracian slave girl.

Heraclitus did not mean with phusis kryptesthai philei the essence loves to hide, because this was an issue only after Plato (91).  It is comforting to read him in this way because such historiography make us possessor and lord of Heraclitus and presents him in the simplest way possible that everyone can understand because everything is thereby present for everyone (92).  History then becomes commemorations easily forgot when the next new movie is out.  We talked with Anaximander there was a being out of joint (adikia), and here too Heidegger notes “The essence of the human being is out of joint (92).”  We see then, the out of jointness is conspicuous when we bring to light what the human is actually doing in his stance toward life (passing time), and so the possibility of leaping to another kind of path is hinted at.  With the not ever submerging there is a double negation with “me (not),” and “dunon” which means departing into concealment.  But such a negation also would mean the perpetually emerging (phusis, 93).  Heidegger notes “Whether we overzealously and rashly drag the saying of Heraclitus before the tribunal of the so-called logical, or whether we indiscriminately attack the saying of the inceptual thinkers with the method of later metaphysics, in each case we miss what is the primary and simple necessity for us: namely, that we attempt to think the saying in what it says, and truly carry out this attempt of thinking in such a way as to thereby exert our understanding (94).”

So, we are indeed still on topic with Anaximander, Parmenides, and Heraclitus in terms of the unity of beings. What we saw today is there is a world of Life that thinkers are not close to (Thales lost in thought falling into a well).