Page 34 - GALIET METAPOIESIS AND TRUTH IV+

Galiet & Galiet
and perishing away, has in itself its very own essence, its very own being in its very own becoming. “Cause and effect, means and ends, seed and fruit cannot be severed; for the effect already blooms in the cause, the end pre-exists in the means, the fruit in the seed.”126 Plato’s Form, however, does not yield to phusis because it denies change: its axis is the sameness of the same (the one in the one), not difference (the many in the one). Plato cannot reconcile both worlds; Heraclitus, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Emerson can. In Plato, the Form does not accept what phusis accepts: its opposite.
Just as phusis is phusis-in-itself, so is the Form a form-in-itself; however, for Plato, phusis evolves, the Form is permanent. However, nature is first. Had he not observed, experienced phusis’ energy, its motions, his notion of the Form would not have come to be. Notion that mirrors phusis and not the obverse. Phusis is objectivity in the making. A concealed subjectivity, its objectivity reveals. Objectivity once revealed, its subjectivity conceals. In this interplay and flow of being, Heraclitean, a form of truth is revealed: aletheia of being in becoming, of Eleusis in Olympus.
Not only Plato’s allegory of the cave, the Divided Line must be re-interpreted, but also another potentially wondrous meaning of privative a-letheia must be considered: never in respect to its ‘unhidden,’ suspicious etymology,127 but in relation to its other: not forgetting. Not forgetting as that which remembers. But what? For Heidegger, the essence of truth can be reached not only from the possibility of correctness, but also from recollection of the beginning.128 That is, from recollecting phusis as the originating (Ent-stehen) where the hidden dwells.” Is it possible, feasible, for phusis in its beginning, in its origin to be recollected in half dark, in half light, in half memory, in half forgetting, as a-letheia? Can a-letheia remember its alterity, Lethe? Lethe of the mythic abode and its never-ending waters of Oblivion? Lethe of a- Lethe, as part of it, as forgetting giving way to remembering, in language, in the said and thought, in existence and in change, drowned or afloat or something else and yet more? In what macrocosms and microcosms 3⁄4 divine or undivine, luminous and mysterious 3⁄4 forgetting and non-forgetting dwell? In what recess, what fire, what spark? Of nature, soul or mind? Heidegger’s remembering, related to memory’s faculty, aspires to remember the sensible animating energy of phusis, to retain its impressions and perceptions in the openness of the open, clearing of being, in the hidden and unhidden. Mythic Lethe, as forgetting, as oblivion,
126 Waldo Emerson, Ralph. The Essential Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. New York: The Modern Library, 2000.
127 Friedlander insists it is uncertain alethes originates from a- and lanthanein and that it means ‘to escape notice, be unseen, unnoticed,withoutbeingobserved,unknown.’127 Evenifalethesweretooriginatefroma-lanthanein,ithardlymeans‘unhidden’in Homer, Hesiod and later authors, but has three main senses: Correctness of speech and belief (epistemological), the reality of being (ontological), the genuineness, truthfulness and conscientiousness of an individual or character (existential
128 Inwood, Michael. A Heidegger Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1999.
•34•