Some call it affinity. Some, attraction. Others recognize the essential and existential reality of interrelated reciprocity between beings and Being.
Physicists and biologists might call this the integrity of materiality. Zen practitioners: the don't-know mind, circumincessional interpenetration, co-original interdependence, buddhanature. Christian mystics: the trinity, perichoresis relationality, christ-mind. Jazz aficionados: what-is, baby!
One reflects the Other because the Other is One.
One now might ask, however, how is it that Being came to be (mis)understood as a thing or even the ultimate thing among things? According to Heidegger, the pre-Socratics – Parmenides and Heraclitus specifically – agreed that the belonging-together of Being and beings is intimately intertwined with the relationship that thinking has to Being. It is this consideration that suggests an imaginable affinity between Lao Tzu’s Taoism and Heidegger’s existential phenomenology.
Lao Tzu articulates the relationship of thinking and Being, closely intertwined with the relationship of Being and things. Verse 23 of Lao Tzu’s “Tao Te Ching” reads, in part, as follows: “The learner of Tao identifies with Tao. When one achieves it, one identifies with one’s achievement. When one loses it, one identifies with one’s losing. When man identifies with achievement, achievement also willingly identifies with man. When man identifies with losing, losing willingly identifies with man.” (Chang, 2014)
Parmenides (it would seem) – at least Heidegger’s Parmenides – echoes LaoTzu’s thoughts here in that Parmenides maintains that thinking is not to be regarded as localized in the subjectivity of the subject, nor is Being to be regarded as located in the objectivity of the object. That is, Heidegger’s Parmenides perceives that “Being” becomes an object of objectivity as a result of the philosopher’s infatuation with beings and things to the extent that these metaphysicians forget the Being of this or that being or thing. A more accurate description of Being, according to Heidegger’s (hermeneutic phenomenology of) Parmenides, is that thinking and Being are unified in a more fundamental relationship. Thinking, for Parmenides (and seemingly also Lao Tzu), means: to grasp, take in, to let something come to the thinker.
(--from, Heidegger, Lao Tzu and the Pre-Socratics: Thinking Being, by Greg Emery,
To think is to allow what is there to reveal itself as what it is to your open and discerning mind.
This takes courage.
Yes, and, alert awareness.
Perhaps loving attentiveness that steps in front of fearful apprehension.
Practitioners in prison share their practice of "what is this?" with us twice a week in meetingbrook conversations.
Teaching us to listen carefully, pay attention wisely, and enjoy one another wholeheartedly.