Two passages that I've been thinking about:

All the misunderstandings with [Kant's] interpreters, with the existentialist "dissidents" and finally with himself, have arisen from the fact that in order to see the world and grasp it as paradoxical, we must break with our familiar acceptance of it and, also, from the fact that from this break we can learn nothing but the unmotivated upsurge of the world.

and

Transcendental idealism too "reduces" the world since, in so far as it guarantees the world, it does so by regarding it as thought or consciousness of the world, and as the mere correlative of our knowledge, with the result that it becomes immanent in consciousness and the aseity of things is thereby done away with. 

I am particularly struck by these two ideas: the upsurge of the world  and the aseity of things. In case (like me) you aren't 100% sure of what "aseity" means, here's what I found on Wikipedia:

Aseity (from Latin a "from" and se "self", plus -ity) refers to the property by which a being exists in and of itself, from itself, or exists as so-and-such of and from itself. The word is often used to refer to the Christian belief that God contains within himself the cause of himself, is the first cause, though many Jewish and Muslim theologians have also believed God to be independent in this way. Notions of aseity as the highest principle go back at least to Plato and have been in wide circulation since Augustine, though the use of the word 'aseity' began only in the Middle Ages.

The use of this theological term to refer to the existence of the ordinary world  strikes me as especially important, and returns me to many of the paradoxes we've referred to before in this class. As does the idea that in the end (or perhaps at the beginning, or before the beginning, as Heidegger would say) all of our thinking and writing are secondary to our primordial sense of the being of things -- the unmotivated upsurge of the world  -- which we can never speak or explain.