>>22406752it's basically standard theistic existentialism
malick's work is a good popular presentation of it
https://youtu.be/EySzoi62ZQw(the ending is a reference to this paramedian fragment with Heidegger's interpretation)
Basically any particular relation or understanding we come into with anything will always be a lie, that the being itself has an inexhaustible quality that when we come into relation with it we greatly simplify. We see it's back, as the quote says.
This makes the presentations very stark, but in a deceptive way. They are stark because that's our creation that we have in order to engage it.
If things seem overwhelming it's because we construct an image of them that is overwhelming, in reality we can never actually see them full or their face.
Even with the same thing we can form images of it that are horrifying or beautiful, the whole thing with the quote is to stress that's not actually what it is but only the back of it. Whenever we look at something we can only ever see the back.
There has to be a combination of being willing to see the different backs and being mindful of what underlies it, the being of the thing and ultimately being as such.
Basically you have to "let the things be" and show you their backs, in different ways (there are infinite backs you can see of everything) while being responsible to those and being mindful of they are only the back. There is a face, and you can get around to it but it's more of a perpetual striving.
I think it's a good sort of way of capturing that sort of general existentialist ethic.
We have to be open to letting beings be, in all their particular manifestations, despite contradiction or challenging our understandings , while maintaining a fidelity to their mysterious face we will always be trying to get around to see.
We are always endanger are thinking the backs are the face and giving up the chase, but we need to try to get round in front.
