heidegger - die gefahr
TRANSCRIPT
1
The Danger 1
A Bremen Lecture (1949) by Martin Heidegger
(Translated by Simon F. Oliai)
En-framing "sets up" that which stands before it and can thus be disposed of.
Similarly, en-framing bars access to all proximity as such. In en-framing, where,
above all, the indifference underpinned by the lack of distance and contrast is
"set up", the lack of proximity gives an insight into the very essence of en-framing as
such. That is to say, it probably pertains to the very essence of en-framing (as that in
which the lack of proximity is dispensed) for proximity to be barred so long as the
logic of en-framing prevails. What be-speaks and announces itself when proximity is
barred? How does the essence of en-framing deploy itself therein? Proximity brings
closer and thus brings the world closer.2
The world, on the other hand, is the mirror-play of the fourfold composed of the
sky, the earth, the mortals and the gods. Bringing the world closer, that is, bringing
it into our proximity is, so to speak, the coming into their thingliness ("Dingen des
Dinges") of things. Were the bringing close that characterizes all proximity barred,
the thing as the thing would become inaccessible. The universal "setting up"
of en-framing leaves all self-presencing no option other that of presenting itself as
1 GA 79, pp.46-67, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1994.
2 Distance and Proximity
2
a parcel-stock in the disposition of the disposable. As disposable, neither the object
(once more, that is) and even less the thing as the thing would be permissible.
In the deployment of en-framing, the thing as the thing is not preserved. In the
essence of en-framing the thing as the thing is left unprotected. In the context of its
en-framing, the thing is thus left without "the true". In our language, the word
“the true” meant “attentive care”. In our Swabian dialect, the word "the true"
signifies that children have been given to their mother's attentive care. In the
context of its "setting up" ("Stellen") as en-framing, the thing is left without the
attentive caring for, that is to say, without "the true" of its thingly essence3.
En-framing does not protect or care for the thing as the thing. The deployment
of en-framing is indeed tantamount to the loss of the thing's "truth". Whilst en-
framing has, for long and in a concealed manner, prevailed and (through its
"setting up") decisively shortshrifted all presence within the limits of a standing
reserve, the thing as the thing has long been "truthless" because of the essential
hegemony of en-framing. In its drive to pile up, en-framing secures only the
disposableness of a standing reserve. That is to say, it maintains an ontological state
in which, originally and essentially, the unattended thing is left behind to sink
further in the loss of its “truth”.
In the essence of en-framing is dispensed the thing's ”neglect" as the thing.
3 Only this (!) Does it not dispense itself in the dispensed exclusion of the essence of truth?
3
The term "neglect" here is taken literally and be-speaks that which has been
thought beforehand. For what is well thought is also well said and vice versa.
"Neglect" does not here denote mere slipping into the state of that which is left
uncared for. Nor does it simply denote falling into disorder. Employed thus, this
term is no mere pejorative one and its use does not entail any value judgment. The
"neglect" of the thing names that which, within the essence of en-framing, manifests
the essence of technology and, as such, springs therefrom. What dispenses itself in
the"neglect" of the thing? What has already occurred when the thing can not,
as it were, "thing" as the thing, that is to say, assume its "thingly" essence as such?
Thinging, so to speak, brings the thing-world close whilst estranging itself from the
world.
When the thing, deprived of its "truth", can not “thing” (given its diminished
character), then access to the world as the world is denied. In the "neglect" of
the thing, the denial of access to the world is thus dispensed. The world is the
concealed mirror-play of the fourfold composed of the sky, the earth, the mortals
and the gods. The world “worlds”, that is to say, it assembles and ordains. Yet, the
“worlding” of the world can not be authentically experienced and correspondingly
thought so long as we remain unskilled in thinking such a “worlding” from out of its
own ground and in conformity with the measure that it provides4. There we need
help. For the “worlding” of the world brings itself to us freely. It is constrained only
where, instead of being thought in terms of the mode of thinking it promises, it is
represented according to other criteria.
4 The „Appropriation’ of Being‟s Dispensation (“Ereignis”)
4
These other criteria may in themselves not even be totally foreign to the essence
of the world. It may indeed happen that we take these other criteria (from which we
attempt to understand the “worlding” of the world) as corresponding to that of
the essence of the world whereas, in truth, the “worldling” of the world is precisely
its concealed essence. That is to say, that which we seek to describe through our
characterisation of the “worlding” of the world. Thus, we run the risk of knowingly
going down an unavoidably mistaken path. Yet, if we go down such a path
knowingly, we could in a certain amount of time backtrack. The world is the
fourfold composed of the earth, the sky, the mortals and the gods. The mirror-play
of fourfolding “renders true” all that comes to its thingly essence and, therein,
deploys and dis-assembles itself in the unified whole of its presencing. Since
Antiquity, the presencing of the present is called ηδ εδν or its beingness whilst ηδ
ειναι stands for Being, namely, thε εδνηα of entities, the esse entium. The world
dispenses, clears and thus “guards” the “thinging” of the things, that is to say, their
coming into their thingly essence. The world “guards” the essence of presencing as
such. The world “guards” and thus “renders true”(in its “worlding”) the essence of
Being which deploys and dispenses the beingness of entities.
We now set the world on what we have known thus far as the Being of entities.
Presented as such, the world is “guarded ”and “rendered true” by Being in its
essence. As its “guarding ”, the world is the “rendering true ”of the essence of Being.
5
Instead of saying “rendering true”, we shall simply say the “truth” and thereby try to
think this fundamental concept more originally on the basis of the “worldling”
of the world, that is to say, the assembling-ordaining brought about by the world.
The hitherto concealed mirror-play in the fourfold of the earth, the sky as well as
the gods and the mortals “worlds” as the world. The world is the “truth” of the
essence of Being. Thus far, we have characterised the world with regards to Being.
The world, thus represented, is subordinated to Being whereas, in “truth”, the
essence of Being is deployed and dispensed from the concealed “worldling” of the
world5. The world is not a manner of Being and a subordinate one at that.
Being appropriates its essence from the “worldling” of the world. What this means
is that the “worlding” of the world is that which dispenses Being in a hitherto
unfamiliar and unexperienced sense of this term. When the world first dispenses in
its own fashion, Being as well as “Nothing” disappear with it in its “worlding”.
Only when “Nothing ”(which, in its essence, springs forth from the “truth” of Being)
has disappeared into the “truth” of Being, shall nihilism be overcome. Yet, the
world as the world estranges and divests itself in its own concealment. Remaining
concealed in Greek is referred to as λαυθαυειν 6. Ληθη is concealment. The world,
in the self-estrangement that its own “worlding” begets, remains concealed as the
essence-origin of Being. However, the world remains concealed (Ληθη) in such a
manner that its concealment procures and guards an unconcealment:Αληθεια.
5 ibid
6 Being hidden and sheltered (“Entbergung”)
6
Such an unconcealment is the cleared “saving” (« Βergen”) of the presencing of that
which comes to presence in unconcealment. An entity (in its being) deploys itself as
that which presents itself from out of Aληθεια. In the unconcealment of all that
comes into presence as such, that is to say, in Αληθεια the entire realm of the essence
of the history of the Being of entities is dispensed and reposes. Αληθεια dispenses
itself in the cleared “saving”(“lichtende Bergen”) of presencing. It does so in such a
way that an entity unfolds itself in the historicity of its presencing. Aληθεια is the
history of Being and, as such, engulfs and outlines the entire breadth of the history
of Being in its various epochs.
A-ληθεια, that is to say, the unconcealment of entities as coming into presence
as such, deploys itself only when and so long as Ληθη dispenses itself as
concealment. As such, Aληθεια does not preclude Ληθη, that is to say,
unconcealment does not exhaust concealment. Rather unconcealment requires
concealment and confirms it as the essential origin of all Aληθεια. The latter
is contained in and contains itself in Ληθη. Yet, this rapport was decided in
such a manner as to make Aληθεια as such7 retreat into concealment, that is to say,
in favour of the presence of entities as such. Thus, the presence of entities arrogated
to itself the ontological priority of that against backdrop of which it had been
deployed in a singular manner.
7 Guards, “renders true” and remains behind -- therefrom first δρθδης
7
The coming into presence of entities can dispense its protective “rendering true”
(in the clearing coextensive with the opening of a world) only in as far as
unconcealment dispenses itself and allows the former to be experienced and
represented or not. Indeed, Aλήθεια does not guard its own truth in its own essence.
It recoils into concealment, Ληθη. Thus, forgetting suits Aληθεια. One must note
that the forgetting of Aληθεια does in no way persist since a human representation
has somehow not retained something in its memorising. Rather, forgetting, that is
to say, the retreating into concealment, dispenses itself togetherwith Aληθεια and in
favour of all presence which, fundamentally, is rooted in and springs forth from
unconcealment. Ληθη is the forgetting of the “rendering true” of the essence of
Being. As such, Ληθη is precisely the essential root and the origin of the institution
of any mode of Being. The shortshrifted and easily misunderstood expression,
“forgetting of Being” says that the essence of Being, that is to say, presencing
harvests its origin from out of Aληθεια as the dispensation of the latter. An origin
which, together with Aληθεια, retreat into concealment8. In thus retreating into
concealment, Aληθεια as well as all coming into presence divest themselves of their
ontological primacy. In so far as they divests themselves in such a way, they remain9
inaccessible to all human understanding and representation. For this very reason,
human thinking can not think the essence of unconcealment and presencing in
themselves. Thus, in retrospect, one can not possibly say that human thinking must
8 Remains therein
9 Unmediated, that is.
8
have hitherto forgotten the essence of Being. Human thinking “forgets” the essence
the Being in such a way only in as far as Being’s own essence retreats into
concealment as forgetting10
. This dispensation lies in the estrangement of the world
as the “guarding-guardian” (“Wahrnis”) of the essence of Being. One can find signs
that such an estrangement, which dispenses itself therein, is concealed in the
history of Being. A history which dispenses and submits itself to various epochs of
the “forgetting of Being”. These epochs are ontologically conditioned by the same
“guarding concealment” (“Entbergung”) of entities (in their Being) in the context of
Western European history which has, by now, come to engulf the totality of the
planet. The concentration on the modern struggle for the mastery of the earth,
which characterises the respective positions of both of today’s world “powers”,
also presupposes the said concealment.
The estrangment of the world dispenses itself as the “neglect” of things11
.
The estrangement of the world and the “neglect” of things are part and parcel
of a unique attitude. As such, they are the “same” but they are not equal.
In what manner does the estrangement of the world dispense itself as
the “neglect” of things? One in which en-framing is deployed and prevails.
For en-framing “sets up” all entities as the disposable stock of a standing reserve.
“Setting them” up as the disposable stock of a standing reserve, en-framing “sets up”
entities in its own characteristic lack of distance and contrast (“das Abstandlose”).
10
The forgetting of the difference, the neglect of the thing-estrangement from the world. 11
Of presencing
9
This is how en-framing relates to all presencing as such. Yet, in its essence, en-
framing is the essence of Being, that is to say, the most visible and, probably,
complete expression of its history. En-framing is the essence of modern technology.
The essence of en-framing is the Being of entities (neither above or beyond them)
which is now entirely forgot there. That is to say, eclipsed in the dispensation
that characterises the epoch in which Being as en-framing is fully deployed.
An epoch that is one of the complete “neglect” of things through en-framing.
The world, that is to say, the dispensation of the “worlding” of things as things,
remains concealed. Even though it is this very concealment that underpins the
unconcealment of entities and, in such a way, guards the presencing of the
Being of entities. The world is the truth of the essence of Being that guards the
determination as well as the dispensation of the latter in its history.
En-framing is Being itself, that is to say, presencing (as an entity) as such in the
prevalent manner of the “neglect” of the thing. The world and en-framing are
the “same”. On the other hand, the “same” is never the equal. Even less would the
“same” be the indifferent togetherness of the identical. The “same” is rather the
rapport of the different. “Sameness” is “savedness”, that is to say, that which is
necessarily dispensed and “guarded” in such a self-enowning rapport and, in the
narrower sense of the term, retained therein. The “world ” and en-framing are the
“same” and thus, even up to the outermost expressions of their respectives essences,
remain opposed to each other.
10
Yet, the opposition between the world and en-framing is no mere representable
opposition of two present objects, that is to say, an opposition that would be
“present-at-hand”. Such an opposition dispenses itself as the expression of the
very deployed essence of Being. In so far as en-framing “sets up” all entities as
disposables in a standing reserve, it also “sets up” the presencing of entities from
its essential origin, that is to say, from Aληθεια. En-framing lets, through the
“setting up” that underpins all disposing of a standing reserve as such, the lack of
distance and contrast prevail. Thus, everything seems of an equally disposable
value. Yet, such an equalisation does not accord much importance to the if and the
how of its own deployment as the unconcealed against the backdrop of a concealed
other. Through the “setting up” that underpins the disposing of a standing reserve,
en-framing lets unconcealment and its essence fall into complete oblivion.
En-framing, as the essence of Being, “sets up” Being outside the truth of its essence
and therefore pits Being against its own very essence. As long as en-framing
prevails, Being is pitted against the truth of its own essence without however being
able to sever itself from it in the context of this very self-opposition and self-
abjuration. The world, that is to say, the “guarding” and the “rendering true” of the
essence of Being, sets itself upon the path charted by the hegemony of en-framing
whilst the world is estranged through the “neglect” of things. In the essence and the
institution of en-framing, the occurence of the “worlding” of the world is thus
stalled.
11
The dispensation of the said stalling underpins the concealed distance that
separates from the “worlding” of the world12
. In en-framing, as the most complete
dispensation of the forgetting of the essence of Being, shines forth, nevertheless, a
ray that reflects the distant origin of the world. In so far as the world estranges itself
from its own “worlding”, one can not say that nothing comes from the world.
Rather, such an estrangement reflects the greatest proximity of that which is most
distant from the world.
The world and en-framing are the same. They are the different facets of the essence
of Being. The world is the “rendering true” of the essence of Being. En-framing is the
most complete forgetting of the truth of Being. The “same” in question here (which
is the differentiated essence of Being) finds itself in an opposition (from within itself)
and, indeed, in such a way that the world is pitted against itself in a concealed
manner in the context of en-framing. En-framing, on the other hand, not only severs
itself from the concealed “worlding” of the world but it also “sets up” all entities as
disposables in a standing reserve, that is to say, it imposes an ontological state
whose imposition presupposes the completion of the forgetting of all “worldling”.
In such a manner, en-framing persecutes and “up-sets” the truth of the
essence of Being13
. This “up-setting” is the authentic “setting up” that is
12
Only possible in so far as en-framing is the appropriation of the dispensation of Being ( “Ereignis”) 13
That is one-sidedly severed from the “world”
12
dispensed in the essence of en-framing. In this “up-setting”14
lies, first and
foremost, the “setting up” that is charactertistic of all en-framing and which
(through the “set up”of all entities as disposables in a standing reserve)
sets them upon the path of their “neglect ”. The innermost essence of all
“setting up”, which dispenses and deploys itself as en-framing, is thus the most
characteristically distinctive manner of persecuting, that is to say, “up-setting”.
In old High German, persecutory “up-setting” (“nachstellen”) is called “fara”.
The danger is the self-assembling “setting up” as persecutory “up-setting”.
“Up-setting” is indeed the ground of the essence of the danger. In so far as Being
persecutes and “up-sets” itself as en-framing and “sets up” the forgetting of its own
essence, Being (“Seyn”) as Being is, indeed, the danger to its own very essence.
Thought in the context of the estrangement of the world and the “neglect” of things,
Being is the danger15
. Being is, simply, in and out of itself the danger to itself. As the
“up-setting” that persecutes, that is to say, “up-sets” its own essence through its own
forgetting, Being as Being is the danger. This essential dangerousness is the mode in
which, as the “same”, that is to say, as the world and en-framing (different facets
of the essence of Being), Being opposes and destitutes itself. For us the thought
that Being dispenses itself as its own danger may appear strange and easily
misunderstood. Thus, we can only think the above-mentioned thought correctly
when we formulate it in the following manner: Being, which is here thought from
out of its own “up-settingly” persecutory essence, must in no way be thought as
endowed with a “dangerous” character. Rather, the danger lies in Being’s reversal.
14
Here, the term is employed differently than in all theory and reflection as such and yet in a manner
that is not without relation to both. 15
Turned upside down (“umgekhert”)
13
This means that the hitherto unfolded conception of Being that was derived from
the metaphyics of idea belongs (in accordance with its concealed essence) to that
which now as the danger prevails on Being. The danger is the self-gathering “up-
setting” which, as en-framing and through the “neglect” of things, persecutes the
self-estranged world with the forgetting of its truth. The essence of technology is en-
framing. The essence of en-framing is the danger. Being, in its very essence, is the
danger to itself. Only when it is understood as a danger in such a manner can the
danger in itself likewise be considered as dangerous by man’s thinking of Being.
The realm of the dangerousness of the danger, one which all thinking must
experience from out of the essence of Being, is what (in another context and at an
earlier times) was referred to as that of error. Yet, one must note that error here is
not understood as some shortcoming or deficiency of knowledge since erring as such
belongs to the very essence of “truth” in the sense of the unconcealment of Being.
The essence of all error lies in the essence of Being as the danger. The greatest
danger lies in the perspective wherein the danger as the danger is concealed and not
recognised as such. “Up-setting” the essence of Being, en-framing thus displays its
essential dangerousness. Therein, it may happen that we may not become aware of
this essence of Being that is a danger to its own very essence. We do not at all
experience the danger as the danger. We do not experience en-framing as the self-
persecutory and “up-setting” disguise of Being’s own essence. We do not experience,
profoundly that is, the essential danger that characterizes Being’s self-relation even
though entities are everywhere beset with all manner of danger and distress.
14
Instead of re-orienting us towards the danger that lies in the very essence of Being,
tribulations and distress of varying sorts make us blind to the danger.Indeed,
the latter’s most dangerous quality lies in that it does not show itself as a danger. It
may seem that Being itself is innocuous. Some may even think that it is the emptiest
and the most general concept there is and, thus, what could be less harmless than
that if not an even emptier concept? Another such concept is the Being of the
ultimate “same”, that is to say, the entity that is most endowed with being, namely,
God16
. The danger, as which the essence of en-framing dispenses itself in the
framework of the domination of technology, is greatest when, in the midst of
particular dangers, only that which is not fundamentally dangerous expresses itself
within the overall context of numerous and contingent forms of distress. In the wake
of every danger, a Distress comes to revolve around it. Such a Distress di-stresses.
Its oft reduced to that which perplexes and squeezed as the insoluble. Assuredly,
where the danger conceals itself, there the Di-stress is bound to veil itself. There, the
Di-stress is not experienced as Di-stress. One encounters much distress and suffering
and attempts to eliminate or diminish these in a case by case manner. A manner that
is underpinned by the general disposition which aims at alleviating all suffering as
such. One which, as far as alleviating insignificant cases of suffering is concerned,
leaves no possible means untested and indeed alleviates a great variety of suffering
and soothes many a distress. All the same, in so doing, one still fails to take into
account the Di-stress itself.
16
Granted that God is not Being itself but the most being of beings (“das Seiendste”), who can
now dare say that a God thus represented is the Danger for Being ?
15
As far as the Di-stress is concerned, the greatest danger, that is to say,
the seeming lack of Di-stress rules in the midst of external dangers. In truth,
even though it is veiled, the apparent lack of Di-stress is the authentic distress.
Everyone suffers distresses and yet no one really perseveres in the Di-stress. Thus,
the danger does not persistently manifest itself as such. Is there a painting in which
we may remark the Di-stress and the hegemony of its apparent lack? There is
indeed that which is noteworthy and yet we do not take note of.
Hundreds of thousands die on a mass scale. Yet, one can ask, do they die?
They perish and are dispersed. Do they really die? They become the stock
of a standing reserve set up to fabricate corpses. Do they die? They are liquidated
in death camps in an inconspicuous manner. Besides all of this, millions now sink
in utter misery and end up perishing of hunger in China. Dying means bringing
death unto its essence. Being able to die means that one can indeed assume and bear
the movement of such a bringing-unto. We can only assume and bear this movement
only when our own essence corresponds to the essence of death and makes its
expression possible. Thus, in the midst of untold deaths, the very essence of death
remains disguised. Death is neither pure nothingness nor is it a mere transition from
one entity to another. Death belongs to and springs forth from the essence of men’s
existence dispensed by Being. As such, it shelters the very essence of Being. Death is
the highest mountain range (“höchste Gebirg der Wahrheit des Seyns selbst”) and the
precious hearth of the “truth” of Being.
16
That is to say, the hearth wherein the concealment of the essence of Being is
sheltered and the fruits of the sheltering of its essence are harvested and gathered.
Therein, man can only correspond to and render possible the expression of Death
only if Being itself gathers the essence of man from out of the “truth” of its own
essence. Death is the Hearth of Being in the Poem of the World.
Corresponding and making possible the expression of death is called being
able to die. Whoever can die is mortal only in a sense that is derived from and
dependent on the original sense of these words. Mass scale suffering, unspoken
and gruesome instances of disconcerting death abound and yet the essence of
death remains disguised and inaccessible to men. Man is thus no longer mortal.
Immeasurably great suffering creeps and rages over the earth. The flood tide of
sorrow and misery rises. Yet, the essence of suffering conceals itself. Suffering
is the rift (“der Riss”) wherein the very ground of the fourfold of the world
displays itself in all its particularity (“eingezeichnet ist”). From out of this ground,
that which is great receives its greatness, that is to say, that which is great for
men as such. In the rift of suffering, the highly saved saves its saving as such. The
rift of suffering thus traverses the complete stretch from the expression of goodwill
to an uncharted port of grace and compassion. Unspeakable and immense grief
oppresses us everywhere. Yet, we remain deprived of suffering since we are not
enowned and claimed by the essence of suffering. A gruesome impoverishment
spreads itself around. The herd of the poor grows and grows. Yet, the essence of
poverty conceals itself.
17
Therein, it is dispensed that the simple wherewithal of the essential be brought,
albeit imperceptibly, to belong to the innermostness where the thing may indeed
inhabit a saved world. Death, the hearth and the rock of Being, Suffering,
the very ground of Being, Poverty, the ownmost freeing of Being unto itself, are
remarkable in as much as, therein, the Danger makes it appears that the Distress
is lacking in the midst of the surrounding distresses and, thus, the Danger is not
the danger. The Danger masks itself in as much as it disguises itself though en-
framing. The latter fully realises itself in that of which it is the essence as such, that
is to say, technology. That is why our attitude towards technology is so odd and
peculiar. In what sense is it odd and peculiar? In that, so long as the essence of
technology is not thought as en-framing and whilst neither the essence of en-framing
is thought as the Danger nor the latter’s essence is illustrated as Being itself, we shall
continue to misinterpret technology. That is to say, precisely we shall misinterpret it
now that everything seems determined through the manifold expressions of
technology and its various realisations. Indeed, we either think too little of
technology or linger too long thereupon.
We may even be tempted to resume the preceding and detailed discussion of
technology, en-framing and the Danger by concluding that technology must be
a danger. Indeed, one hears everywhere such a judgement passed on technology
in a sufficiently loud and forceful manner. Some even go farther in their judgement.
18
One even affirms that technology is the doom of all higher culture and shall
violently lower everything down to the level of mere civilisation. Technology is
described is the catastrophe of the modern world. One that shall certainly
decline in the wake of the irresistible sway of technology. Today, such judgements
are passionately pronounced as warnings that can frigthen and discourage us.
In many different ways, they determine dominant, contemporary views of
technology and yet they do not account for the fact that one is simultaneously and
voraciously obliged to follow and perhaps even further pursue the progress of
technology. Here, the latter does not contradict our judgement of or attitude
towards technology. In any case, contradiction as such does not amount to
a valid objection. For what does not contradict itself in our existence and
nevertheless remains real, perhaps even more so than that which is smoothly
coherent? We have now mentioned these known views only because we are
interested in understanding how they represent modern technology. These do
not think technology on the basis of its essence and origin. Rather, they think of
technology within the perspective of its accomplishments and in relationship to the
whole of reality as such. By which one means that which lies outside the domain of
technology’s essence, to wit, culture, politics, ethics or religion. Thus, with these
man reckons how technology, as one among many other so-called “realities”,
concerns and relates to them.
19
One berates technology for its provoking (“herausfordern”) of other realities as well
as the manner in which it aggressively enframes them and brings about beneficial
and harmful effects. One therefore thinks of technology technically. Technology is
thus subordinated to the power of technical evaluations. Yet, technical judgements
on technology never attain its essence. Indeed, so little can they make headway in
attaining it that they even forbid access to it.
The mentioned characterisations never think the essence of technology. Moreover,
given that their judgements on technology do not spring forth from the domain of
its essence, they remain no more than superficial prejudices. This is why it is
immaterial whether we detest technology as mankind’s doom or praise it as
mankind’s greatest achievement and the instrument of its redemption. Our
comportment towards technology remains confused and fragmented. By not
venturing upon the path of thinking, our finite human essence risks setting
the essence of technology aside (not just its achievements or mere utility) and may
end up retching itself on it by approaching it in a haphazard manner that is
bedevilled by the ambiguity of technology’s essence.
By retching itself up in such a way, one would miss the possibility of accomplishing
of what one fundamentally aspires to, namely, steering technology in a manner
worthy of man through human action. Indeed, how could we do this humanely, in
grand style and in conformity with an historically dispensed sense, so long as the
question of the essence of technology and its essential relationship to man’s essence
20
is not seriously seized upon? So long as we do not carefully observe that we must
first open up thinking and reflection on the domain of the essence of technology
(“Wesenbereich der Technik”) and, instead, continue to mull over it in a technical
fashion, we shall not be able to make any appropriate decision concerning
technology.
There are interpretations of technology which assert that it is neither something
evil nor something good. One says that technology is neutral in character and all
depends on how one engages with it and what one makes out of it. All depends on
whether man is in a condition that would enable him to take control of technology
and will its subjection to higher goals. All is decided by whether man can steer
technology in a moral and religious manner. A view such as the foregoing does not
naysay the seriousness of our responsibility in tackling technology and yet, through
such a meditation on technology, one thinks it as little in terms of its own essence as
through its previously mentioned interpretations. For whoever regards technology
as something neutral would indeed represent it as an instrument with which other
instruments could be put to use or installed. Whoever takes technology to be
something neutral shall in turn have to represent it instrumentally, that is to say,
technically. But technology does not exclusively consist of the technical and conceals
its essence therein. The essence of technology itself is not technical.
21
Admittedly, some hold technology to be something neutral and evaluate it as such.
The captious appearance of such a view of technology reinforces the impression that
such an interpretation of technology is objective whereas it is not at all value free.
Indeed, its captious appearance is deceptive. Whether one holds technology to
be something diabolical, something divine or something neutral, in all these
representations and valuations the phenomenon of technology is approached in
an exterior and unessential manner.
For, in all of them technology is viewed as an means to an end. By interpreting
technology as a means, one places and situates it in the hands of man and represents
it as a reality among many other realities. Whoever takes technology to be a means,
be it an essential or an inessential one, oft portrays it in the context of its invariably
positive appraisals and wishes to undertake and complete a worthy explication of it.
In truth, however, technology is devalued (in its essence) whenever it is regarded as
a means or a tool. For it is regarded as some being among many others whereas
it is in technology and as technology that Being deploys and dispenses itself.
On the other hand, when one seeks to think the essence of technology within the
prevalent and universal framework of the consolidation of “setting up” as such,
that is to say, experience and think it as en-framing, the implicit claim of such
a thinking is that of appreciating technology in a way that can hardly be surpassed
by contemporary thought.
22
Yet, we have not alluded to the usual and contemporary opinions of technology here
in order to contend that they somehow abandon thinking or criticise them for being
inadequate in their relation to the essence of technology and thus refute them as
deficient judgements thereof. Various historically necessary and dominant views of
technology have been solely contemplated on here in order to elucidate how the
dominant essence of technology ordains human representation of it. For the
essential dominance of the essence of technology does not primarily lie in the
workings of high frequency machines but is found where technology presents and
fashions human representation as, first and foremost, technical. Indeed, the very
essence of technology, that is to say, en-framing carries out such a disguise. Such a
self-disguising of enframing can be well revealed as such where one had long
fumbled in the dark and divested technology of its essential attribute by viewing
it as a mere application of a means to an end. Whereas, it is technology that has
inverted the equation by drawing man behind it as its instrument. Quite possibly,
men have also blindly followed this path and, all the while, unwittingly travailed
themselves over how to use technology in a healthy and useful manner.
Be that as it may, technology is not, in the end, a mere instrument since from its
very essential beginning (“von ihrem Wesenanfang”) it has never become a means
in the hands of men. It has been overshadowed within the backdrop of its utilisation
as a means even though the everyday semblance provided by numerous
technological accomplishments may present a different picture. For this very
reason, when one realises, here and there, that, in truth, technology can indeed be
23
something other than a mere means, one oft trys- through the use of grandiloquent
and unexamined expressions- to free oneself of the spell which has been cast on
man’s essence by that of technology’s. One says that technology is something
demonic and that the demonic character of technology enmeshes men’s will and
interaction in a tragic manner. In an epoch of distress such as ours, it behooves us
not to make light use of words which originate in the language of an epoch of great
thinking in which the highly thought domain of the manifestation of the Gods, that
is to say, δαζμουες, and of Destiny, ηυχη, once shone and “guarded”.
The perplexing fear of the supposedly demonic character of technology and
its supposedly tragic consequences is, in truth, anguish in face of the thinking which
thinks what is. That is to say, a thinking which soberly seeks its path-beyond the
mere stunting or sharpening of the intellect and sentimentalism- in and through
thinking. In its essence, technology is neither a means to an end nor an end in itself.
It essence institutes beyond the domain of means and ends in a domain which is
determined by all primordial realisation as it were and, as such, can indeed be
delimited as the domain of the real. In its essence, technology is no reality in the
midst of many others. For it is the concealed ground of the reality of all that is now
real. The ground of all reality is presence. Presencing belongs to the very essence of
Being.
24
The essence of technology is Being in the essential form of enframing. Yet, the
essence of enframing is the Danger. Let us think clearly: enframing itself is not
the Danger since dangeorus and threatening consequences can supposedly spring
from the essence of technology. The Danger is not enframing as technology but,
rather, as Being. The essence of the Danger is Being itself in so far as it “sets up”,
that is to say, persecutes (“nachstellt”) the “truth” of its own essence through its
forgetting. Since the essence of technology should not be thought as being more
restricted than that of Being’s, it is designated here with the unfamiliar expression,
en-framing.
Given that we have thought the essence of technology as the Being of beings
in the same train of thought on the matter of our reflection, we could use the same
expression to designate the essence of technology and the word en-framing could
indeed be considered as a shorthand for both. The word “setting up” (“stellen”)
is derived from the Greek term θεζις provided, that is, we think in the Greek
manner. In this case, what does thinking in the Greek manner mean? It means
taking into consideration which clearing of the essence of Being had come to claim
(and was presuspposed) by which manner of existence that pertained to the ancient
Greeks. It means thinking, at the very outset, in which dispensation of Being such an
unconcealment of the Being of the ancient Greeks had indeed stood and how such a
dispensation’s fundamental claim to their existence spoke its own language and,
indeed, spoke every word of this language. Such a taking into consideration of that
which is Greek is singularly more difficult than the practice of classical philology.
25
That is why it is more exposed to error than the mentioned science. Thinking in the
Greek manner does not mean merely turning to lessons in classical philology.
Were it to mean only this, we would run the danger of not knowing the mentioned
science’s obvious presuppositions by delivering our thinking and that which it must
think to a determined form of historical representation.
What would the word θεζις mean when we think in the Greek manner? θεζις means
“setting up” and positing. Such a “setting up” springs from Φυαις in such a way that
it is determined by the same Φυαις and within its very domain. What this means is
that within Φυαις a certain θεζις-like character is concealed. In the world of the
Greeks, a crucial difference bespoke through terms such as θυζει and θεζις.
The difference concerned the manner of the presencing of that which is present as
such, i.e., Being. θεζει, θεζς must, therefrom, be thought in relation to Being. Thus,
the rapport between Being and “setting up” announced itself in the first epoch of the
history of Being. Let us note that, in retrospect, it is not strange that in a subsequent
epoch Being should dispense itself in the manner of a “setting up” in the sense of en-
framing. At which point, we must note (this must still be further refined) that en-
framing must be thought of as an outgrowth of the former and, as such, must be
thought as the assembling of all growth. En-framing: the assembling of “setting up”
in the mentioned sense of ordering, “up-setting” and persecuting (“nach-stellen”).
26
It is not strange that the essence of Being has forged an essential rapport with
“setting up” and positing. What is strange is that for a hundred years one has never
sought to question and examine this rapport. At the dawn of Being’s history, in
what sense and in what manner does a θεζις-like character deploy itself in Being,
that is, Φυζις ? The latter means the self-illuminating arising, educing and bringing
forth of all presence from out of concealment into unconcealment. Φνζις is the self-
illuminating arising of bringing-forth as such. We do not however use the term
“bringing forth” in its usual and harmless connotation here, one whose explication
may not seem necessary.
Rather, we must rigourously think “bringing-forth” in the unity of the dimension
which is linked to and links all concealment (Ληθη) to unconcealment (Α-ληθεια) in
an essential manner and “guards” them both interchangeably. Thought in the Greek
sense of Φυζις, “bringing forth” means bringing here unto unconcealement from
concealment. This bringing means that one lets something come forth from out of
itself17
. Only when Φυζις disposes, θεαις is possible and necessary. Only when such
a “bringing forth” in the “mounting”(“Hervorbringen An-gebrachtes”)of an entity
deploys (“anwest”) itself, can a given entity (a rock) and, from it and through
human “setting up”, another entity (a stone staircase) be installed among other
already present entities (the rising crag and its base). This latter entity (the
staircase) deploys itself in the manner of that which, through all human “setting up”
in installation, comes to assume a standing and permanent character.
17
Λδγος: Bringing forth into setting forth, let set forth.
27
That which is thus made to stand and assume a permanent character through
θεζει deploys itself differently from that which is “brought forth” and installed
through θνζει . Nevertheless, the latter underpins the fact that, in Φνζις, both
that which is brought before and onto, that is to say, entities, are represented as
standing before us in a permanent fashion. Yet, that which is thus brought to stand
before us, that is to say, into concealment has not been “brought forth” through
some human installing18
but, rather, through that which “brings itself forth” before
us. Bringing in the manner of Φνζις is a disposing out of itself, a “setting up” that
is a self-installation through entities into unconcealment . Φυζις, that is to say,
self-installing in unconcealment is letting entities present themselves into
unconcealment19
. Letting entities thus present themselves is the Being of entities.
Therefrom and early on, Φνζις showed itself to be a “self-bringing forth” whose
character is that of a “setting up”. A “setting up” that is not brought about through
some human endeavour but one which brings about all human setting forth and
representation as such . In which, unconcealment is alloted to all human ordering
and directing as such whilst a sheltering within unconcealment is also brought about
and “set up”. Yet, the outline of such a “setting up” (one that is freely let be and
sheltered through “bringing forth” as such) does not pertain to that which, through
the essence of Being and its history, is dispensed as en-framing20
.
18
ποιησις 19
Bringing into Proximity; to guard and save all “pre-sencing” 20
This sounds ambiguous (!)
28
Nevertheless, “setting up” deploys itself in the manner of the “upsetting set up”of
en-framing which, by virtue of a common and concealed origin, seems to be
essentially interchangeable with “setting up” in the sense of Φυζις. The term en-
framing names the essence of technology. Technology deploys itself in the manner
of an “upsetting set up” not because technological procedures are used in
manufacturing and employing machines which to us appears as en-framing in the
sense of the linkage of bars and equipments. The essence of technology bears the
name en-framing since in the “setting up” of all en-framing Being itself is to be
found. That is to say, Being which, since the beginning of its history, has illumined
itself as Φυιζς, as “setting up” that emerges and “brings forth” out of itself. From the
essence of Being, from Φυιζς, Being- which deploys itself as enframing- derives its
name. The geneaology of en-framing as the essence of technology has been situated
in the essential origin of the European-planetary history of Being, one which has
emerged from out of Φνζις. Wherein, unconcealment has come to claim entities
as their fulfilled originary essence. Since the early epoch of Greek thought,
unconcealment’s claim to entities has not been a silent one. Indeed, it was last be-
spoken in Nietzsche’s conception of the Will to Power that deploys itself as the
Eternal Recurrence of the Same. What a thinker says of Being is not his opinion.
That which is said in his thinking (“Das Gesagte”) is the telling echo of the claim
as which Being deploys itself and within which it brings itself onto language.
Being an echo is both rarer and more difficult than having an opinion and
defending standpoints. Being an echo is the suffering of thinking.
29
One whose quiet sobriety bespeaks its passion. A thinking that is infinitely more
difficult and fraught with danger than the oft cited and supposedly authoritative
objectivity of scientific research. To be an echo, namely, to bespeak the claim of
Being requires an accuracy of language of which the technico-technological
linguistic style of sciences assuredly knows nothing. The international character of
all scientific language is the strongest proof of its homelessness and rootlessness.
However, this does not at all mean that the rootedness of language is protected
and determined or bestowed thereupon by the merely National (“das bloβ
Nationale im geringsten ”) in the narrowest sense of the term.
The rooted character of a higher language thrives only in the realm of the uncanny
claim made by the intrinsic silence of the essence of Being. The term en-framing
serves, when used to speak of technology to whose thinking it belongs, to determine
an epoch of Being whilst its essence, that is to say, “setting up”, lies in the early
history of Being (Φνζις Θεζις ). That which in the early history of Being in the
essence of Φνζις was concealed in Θεζις, namely, “setting up” comes to language
in the latest epoch of the modern history of Being. Wherein, Kant gives expression
to the ongoing echo of its claim as the Being of entities when he speaks of the essence
of Being as the “absolute position”, as the positedness and the being set of objects or
entities21
.
21
Yet, posited and set by whom? The human subject? With what right?
30
En-framing is spoken as the thoughtfully chosen name of technology and
not taken as some familiar expression saddled with the misleading overtone of a
superficially oppositional characterisation. En-framing tells us that technology is
no mere product of culture and no mere reflection of civilisation. In conformity
with its essence, technology is the self-ordaining assemblage of positing in the sense
of “setting up” of all entities in the “set-up”. The grounding backdrop of all setting
in the “set-up” is deployed in the “up-set” (“nach-stellen”) as which Being
“persecutes” its own very essence with its forgetting22
. For Being deploys itself inso
far as it turns away (“wegkehrt”) from its own essence and thus turns this essence
away (“zukehrt”) through its forgetting.
Glossary of Some Key Concepts
German Terms:
das Abstandlose: Lack of distance and contrast
A-letheia (Α-ληθεια): “Truth” as un-concealment
An-gebrachte: Mounted/ Installed into a specific form
Ankunft: Arrival
Anschein: Semblance
Anspruch: Claim to/ Enownment by Being
Anwesen: Presencing
Anwesende: Entity
Austrag: Difference /the differentiating movement
22
Why? How can it be thought on the basis of the appropriation of the dispensation of Being (“Ereignis”)?
31
Ausbleiben: Exclusion
Beistellen: Establishment
Βergen: To Shelter
Bergung: Sheltering and Concealing
Bereich: Domain/ Realm
Beseitigen: Exclude/ Set Aside
Bestellen: Set up
Bestand: Standing Reserve
Bestandstück: Parcel of a Standing Reserve
Betreiben: Practice/Occupy oneself with
Beruhen: To Lie in
Entgegensetzung: Opposition
Entziehen: To Divest
Er-eigen: To Dispense/ En-own
Ereignis: The “Event” of the Appropriation of Being’s Dispensation
Das Gebirge: The Rock / The Hearth
Die Gefahr: The Danger
Gehalten: To Keep / To Contain
Gehüten: To Protect and Shelter
Ge-Stell: En-framing
Gestellheit: Being set up and en-framed
Das Geviert: The Fourfold
Gleich-giltigen: Making equally indifferent
32
Herbeizerren: To Harm
Herstellen: To Set and Establish in front of
Die Hut: The Care/ The Custody/ The Careful Watch
Lehen: To Derive
Leistung: Accomplishement / Realisation
Nach-stellen: To Up-set / To Persecute
Die Nähe: Proximity
Stellen: To Set up
Stellung: Positing / Setting up
Der Tod: Death
Verweigerung: Neglect
Verwahrlosung: A Thing’s Loss of its “Truth”
Verstellen: To Disguise
Wahrung: Preserving the “Truth”
Wahrnis: Rendering “True”
Wesen: Essence (noun)/ To deploy (verb)
Zug: Train/ Current (of Thought)
33
Greek Terms:
Αληθεια Aletheia (“Truth” as Un-concealment)
Ληθη Lethe (Concealedness, Hiddenness)
Λδγος Logos (Discourse, Saying, Pronouncement)
Θεζις Thesis (Positing)
Φνζις Phusis(Nature-Being)
34