Ursprung

Seinsfrage? Sein oder nicht sein? That is NOT the question. Why? For we do not have the choice to step out of being to survey which would be preferable. Yet nor do we have the choice to step out of being to see why there are beings and not nothing. But, on a certain level, this question can still be seen as it unfolds from within. Is this unfolding of the question or of the answer? If the latter it can only be an appearance of itself, whereas if the former, the question unfolds and is discovered to be a leap. A leaping to the grounding of an un-ground. An abyss over which a horizon unconceals itself as a tautology, being never able to step out of language. The leap, in language, made by language, "attains the ground for all genuine questioning by leaping and is thus an originary leap", a leap "spurred" on by the question of questions, the questioning of the interrogative in that question, for which a ground comes out of concealment as a necessary illusion. For without that illusion no question can be asked: behind all questions lies the "first" question, asked alongside all others, the fundamental question of metaphysics, the question of the ursprung. This "happening", alongside the exit from the confines of the only being able to act "as if", proves to be an "untimely" "foolishness": untimely for it is of yet to come into its own yet it always already has, "unfashionably"; foolish for as soon as it is asked it is an endeavor into the possibility of unfaith, the possibility of the banality of logos, the possibility of a not-ground not being able to ground, an ursrpung that cannot penetrate the abyss but must remain forcefully trying to subcede and precede the horizon to which it is confined: the horizon of logic, the horizon of tautology.