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 2

GA 79, pp.46-67, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1994. 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 enframing 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.

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 Beings Dispensation (Ereignis)

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 or its beingness whilst stands for Being, namely, th 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 6. 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 () in such a manner that its concealment procures and guards an unconcealment:.

5 6

ibid Being hidden and sheltered (Entbergung)

Such an unconcealment is the cleared saving ( ergen) 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 A. In the unconcealment of all that comes into presence as such, that is to say, in the entire realm of the essence of the history of the Being of entities is dispensed and reposes. 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. A is the history of Being and, as such, engulfs and outlines the entire breadth of the history of Being in its various epochs.

A-, that is to say, the unconcealment of entities as coming into presence as such, deploys itself only when and so long as dispenses itself as concealment. As such, A does not preclude , that is to say, unconcealment does not exhaust concealment. Rather unconcealment requires concealment and confirms it as the essential origin of all A. The latter is contained in and contains itself in . Yet, this rapport was decided in such a manner as to make A 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.

Guards, renders true and remains behind -- therefrom first

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, A does not guard its own truth in its own essence. It recoils into concealment, . Thus, forgetting suits A. One must note that the forgetting of A 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 A and in favour of all presence which, fundamentally, is rooted in and springs forth from unconcealment. is the forgetting of the rendering true of the essence of Being. As such, 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 A as the dispensation of the latter. An origin which, together with A, retreat into concealment8. In thus retreating into concealment, A 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 remain 9 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 9

Remains therein 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 Beings 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 todays 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 11

The forgetting of the difference, the neglect of the thing-estrangement from the world. Of presencing

9 This is how en-framing relates to all presencing as such. Yet, in its essence, enframing 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 A. 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 selfabjuration. 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 13

Only possible in so far as en-framing is the appropriation of the dispensation of Being ( Ereignis) That is one-sidedly severed from the world

12 dispensed in the essence of en-framing. In this up-setting14 lies, first and foremost, the setting up that is charactertistic of all en-framing and which (through the set upof 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 Beings 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 upsetting 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 enframing. 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 mans 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 selfpersecutory and up-setting disguise of Beings own essence. We do not experience, profoundly that is, the essential danger that characterizes Beings 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 latters 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 mens existence dispensed by Being. As such, it shelters the very essence of Being. Death is the highest mountain range (hchste 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 enframing. 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 latters 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 technologys 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 mankinds doom or praise it as mankinds 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 technologys 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 mans 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 mans essence by that of technologys. One says that technology is something demonic and that the demonic character of technology enmeshes mens 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, , and of Destiny, , 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 Beings, 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 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 dispensations 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 sciences obvious presuppositions by delivering our thinking and that which it must think to a determined form of historical representation.

What would the word mean when we think in the Greek manner? means setting up and positing. Such a setting up springs from in such a way that it is determined by the same and within its very domain. What this means is that within a certain -like character is concealed. In the world of the Greeks, a crucial difference bespoke through terms such as and . The difference concerned the manner of the presencing of that which is present as such, i.e., Being. , 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 enframing. At which point, we must note (this must still be further refined) that enframing 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 Beings history, in what sense and in what manner does a -like character deploy itself in Being, that is, ? The latter means the self-illuminating arising, educing and bringing forth of all presence from out of concealment into unconcealment. is the selfilluminating 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 () to unconcealment (-) in an essential manner and guards them both interchangeably. Thought in the Greek sense of , bringing forth means bringing here unto unconcealement from concealment. This bringing means that one lets something come forth from out of itself17. Only when disposes, 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

: Bringing forth into setting forth, let set forth.

27 That which is thus made to stand and assume a permanent character through deploys itself differently from that which is brought forth and installed through . Nevertheless, the latter underpins the fact that, in , 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 is a disposing out of itself, a setting up that is a self-installation through entities into unconcealment . , 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, 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 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 upof en-framing which, by virtue of a common and concealed origin, seems to be essentially interchangeable with setting up in the sense of . The term enframing 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 , as setting up that emerges and brings forth out of itself. From the essence of Being, from , 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 . Wherein, unconcealment has come to claim entities as their fulfilled originary essence. Since the early epoch of Greek thought, unconcealments claim to entities has not been a silent one. Indeed, it was last bespoken in Nietzsches 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 blo 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 ( ). That which in the early history of Being in the essence of was concealed in , 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: A-letheia (-): An-gebrachte: Ankunft: Anschein: Anspruch: Anwesen: Anwesende: Austrag: Lack of distance and contrast Truth as un-concealment Mounted/ Installed into a specific form Arrival Semblance Claim to/ Enownment by Being Presencing Entity 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: Beistellen: ergen: Bergung: Bereich: Beseitigen: Bestellen: Bestand: Bestandstck: Betreiben: Beruhen: Entgegensetzung: Entziehen: Er-eigen: Ereignis: Das Gebirge: Die Gefahr: Gehalten: Gehten: Ge-Stell: Gestellheit: Das Geviert: Gleich-giltigen: Exclusion Establishment To Shelter Sheltering and Concealing Domain/ Realm Exclude/ Set Aside Set up Standing Reserve Parcel of a Standing Reserve Practice/Occupy oneself with To Lie in Opposition To Divest To Dispense/ En-own The Event of the Appropriation of Beings Dispensation The Rock / The Hearth The Danger To Keep / To Contain To Protect and Shelter En-framing Being set up and en-framed The Fourfold Making equally indifferent

32 Herbeizerren: Herstellen: Die Hut: Lehen: Leistung: Nach-stellen: Die Nhe: Stellen: Stellung: Der Tod: Verweigerung: Verwahrlosung: Verstellen: Wahrung: Wahrnis: Wesen: Zug: To Harm To Set and Establish in front of The Care/ The Custody/ The Careful Watch To Derive Accomplishement / Realisation To Up-set / To Persecute Proximity To Set up Positing / Setting up Death Neglect A Things Loss of its Truth To Disguise Preserving the Truth Rendering True Essence (noun)/ To deploy (verb) Train/ Current (of Thought)

33 Greek Terms:

Aletheia (Truth as Un-concealment) Lethe (Concealedness, Hiddenness) Logos (Discourse, Saying, Pronouncement) Thesis (Positing) Phusis(Nature-Being)

34