Saturday, April 29, 2017
On the unconcealing goddess.
μῦθος does not need to mean proclamation, in the sense of divine revelation, something merely to be accepted, something not understood and not understandable. It can also mean manifestation. In this sense, the goddess manifests the way, makes known the prospect offered by the way.
Yet are not these the same? Divine accomplishment or divine assistance—are not both precisely not the human being relying on his own resources? These questions are justified, but only as long as we are not clear about which goddess is here doing the manifesting. Ἀλήθεια, Unconcealedness, precisely the goddess who allows the unconcealed to show itself as such. A remarkable goddess. She does not force anything but, instead, leads, precisely as herself, to the place where the one who is led must set himself (κρίνειν) on his own resources in order to satisfy the goddess’s lead. The goddess leads by liberating, by thrusting one into the open realm. The manifesting she undertakes is thus quite peculiar. It is that μῦθος whose understanding requires precisely λόγος and only λόγος.
The goddess can be relied on—not on account of some sort of inspiration or any other testimony or submissiveness, but on account of the unconcealed as such and its free appropriation.
P. 108
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

Appropriation appropriates! Send your appropriations to enowning at gmail.com.

View mobile version