How few understand--and how rarely those who understand grasp--"negation." One immediately sees in it only rejection, putting aside, degrading, and even destroying. Not only are those forms of negation often pretentious, they also most immediately encourage the common ideaa of "no." Thus the thought of the possibility that negation could perhaps have a still deeper being than "yes" is left out--especially since one quickly also takes "yes," in the sense of any kind of approval, as superficially as the "no."

But is approving and rejecting in the domain of representing and of representing "evaluation" the only form of yes and no? Is that domain after all the only and essential domain, or is it rather, like all correctness, derived from a more originary truth? And in the end is not the "yes and no" an essential possession of being itself--and the "no" even more originarily than the "yes"?

But how? Must not the "no" (and the "yes") have its essential form in the Da-sein that is used by be-ing? The "no" is the great leap-off, by which the t/here [Da] in Da-sein is leaped into: the leap-off that both "affirms" that from which it leaps off and has itself as leap no nothing [nichts Nichtiges]. The leap-off itself first undertakes to leap-open the leap, and in this way the "no" surpasses the "yes."

P. 125

¶ 8:38 AM