Good grammer, the "Grammer of Being," therefore fails to say its meaning. The word is not sufficiently visionary, including the word "Being" itself, which says (and does) nothing remarkable--that is the word or mark for it. We would have to invent another glance, another trait inscribed in the very body of language and that would be different from this blind and indifferent vision that is the letter. We would have to surpass the letter and finally touch the spirit spirit (of language). But is that itself not already a blind word? "King Oedipus has one eye too many, perhaps"...the eye for what is not to be seen.

    But if it is only in light that what appears can allow itself to be see, "light itself remains in a dimension of opening and of liberty" that Heidegger will name die Lichtung or das Ereignis: the flash that makes come (but also the coming-as-event). In Ereignis, in the "eye" of this word, there would be (though as a distant trace, already becoming tain) the Aug, the eye. The word gives us the eye at the very moment in which it no longer gives anything to be seen, nothing but the -invisible that is in the visible without residing there, in the letter, just as silence always returns to (re)sound in every word when it is left to go on its way, returns to haunt it in its body: the dead bosy of a live language, ready to be reanimated every time a fresh breath is lent it, as though we (those "endowed with speech") were but the poppets as a theater of shadows. This is the moment in which language speaks. At this moment, everything is reversed. But has philosophy not always carried out this reversal of the glance? From beings to Being--and now, from Being to what?

Pp. 58-59

¶ 3:38 PM