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.

The „Appropriation’ of Being‟s Dispensation (“Ereignis”)

We now set the world on what we have known thus far as the Being of entities. that which we seek to describe through our characterisation of the “worlding” of the world. the “worldling” of the world is precisely its concealed essence. the sky. Presented as such. The mirror-play of fourfolding “renders true” all that comes to its thingly essence and. therein. That is to say. 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. we run the risk of knowingly going down an unavoidably mistaken path. their coming into their thingly essence. Yet. Since Antiquity. The world “guards” the essence of presencing as such. clears and thus “guards” the “thinging” of the things. As its “guarding ”. the mortals and the gods. thε εδνηα of entities. in truth. that is to say. namely. the presencing of the present is called ηδ εδν or its beingness whilst ηδ ειναι stands for Being. deploys and dis-assembles itself in the unified whole of its presencing. Thus. the esse entium. if we go down such a path knowingly. we could in a certain amount of time backtrack. The world dispenses.4 These other criteria may in themselves not even be totally foreign to the essence of the world. the world is the “rendering true ”of the essence of Being. The world “guards” and thus “renders true”(in its “worlding”) the essence of Being which deploys and dispenses the beingness of entities. The world is the fourfold composed of the earth. the world is “guarded ”and “rendered true” by Being in its essence. .

The world is not a manner of Being and a subordinate one at that. Thus far. However. that is to say. shall nihilism be overcome. is subordinated to Being whereas. the world as the world estranges and divests itself in its own concealment.5 Instead of saying “rendering true”. remains concealed as the essence-origin of Being. the world remains concealed (Ληθη) in such a manner that its concealment procures and guards an unconcealment:Αληθεια. in “truth”. 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. in the self-estrangement that its own “worlding” begets. we have characterised the world with regards to Being. Being appropriates its essence from the “worldling” of the world. Only when “Nothing ”(which. The hitherto concealed mirror-play in the fourfold of the earth. The world. 5 6 ibid Being hidden and sheltered (“Entbergung”) . The world is the “truth” of the essence of Being. springs forth from the “truth” of Being) has disappeared into the “truth” of Being. the assembling-ordaining brought about by the world. Being as well as “Nothing” disappear with it in its “worlding”. Remaining concealed in Greek is referred to as λαυθαυειν 6. in its essence. Ληθη is concealment. Yet. 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. the sky as well as the gods and the mortals “worlds” as the world. When the world first dispenses in its own fashion. the essence of Being is deployed and dispensed from the concealed “worldling” of the world5. thus represented. The world.

as such. A-ληθεια. unconcealment does not exhaust concealment. in favour of the presence of entities as such. this rapport was decided in such a manner as to make Aληθεια as such7 retreat into concealment. As such. in Αληθεια the entire realm of the essence of the history of the Being of entities is dispensed and reposes. that is to say. deploys itself only when and so long as Ληθη dispenses itself as concealment. Yet. In the unconcealment of all that comes into presence as such. the unconcealment of entities as coming into presence as such. An entity (in its being) deploys itself as that which presents itself from out of Aληθεια. Aληθεια is the history of Being and. the presence of entities arrogated to itself the ontological priority of that against backdrop of which it had been deployed in a singular manner. It does so in such a way that an entity unfolds itself in the historicity of its presencing. engulfs and outlines the entire breadth of the history of Being in its various epochs. Rather unconcealment requires concealment and confirms it as the essential origin of all Aληθεια. that is to say. The latter is contained in and contains itself in Ληθη.6 Such an unconcealment is the cleared “saving” (« Βergen”) of the presencing of that which comes to presence in unconcealment. Thus. that is to say.therefrom first δρθδης . that is to say. Aληθεια does not preclude Ληθη. “renders true” and remains behind -. Αληθεια dispenses itself in the cleared “saving”(“lichtende Bergen”) of presencing. 7 Guards.

in retrospect. 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. retreat into concealment8. the retreating into concealment. 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. that is to say. Aλήθεια does not guard its own truth in its own essence. together with Aληθεια. Indeed. forgetting suits Aληθεια. Rather. Ληθη is the forgetting of the “rendering true” of the essence of Being.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. Ληθη. presencing harvests its origin from out of Aληθεια as the dispensation of the latter. In thus retreating into concealment. It recoils into concealment. forgetting. As such. “forgetting of Being” says that the essence of Being. dispenses itself togetherwith Aληθεια and in favour of all presence which. that is to say. In so far as they divests themselves in such a way. Ληθη is precisely the essential root and the origin of the institution of any mode of Being. fundamentally. is rooted in and springs forth from unconcealment. one can not possibly say that human thinking must 8 9 Remains therein Unmediated. Thus. that is. Aληθεια as well as all coming into presence divest themselves of their ontological primacy. . An origin which. Thus. The shortshrifted and easily misunderstood expression.

“Setting them” up as the disposable stock of a standing reserve. also presupposes the said concealment. they are the “same” but they are not equal. One can find signs that such an estrangement. the neglect of the thing-estrangement from the world. 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. The concentration on the modern struggle for the mastery of the earth. 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. en-framing “sets up” entities in its own characteristic lack of distance and contrast (“das Abstandlose”). The estrangement of the world and the “neglect” of things are part and parcel of a unique attitude.8 have hitherto forgotten the essence of Being. 10 11 The forgetting of the difference. by now. which characterises the respective positions of both of today’s world “powers”. which dispenses itself therein. come to engulf the totality of the planet. The estrangment of the world dispenses itself as the “neglect” of things11. Of presencing . This dispensation lies in the estrangement of the world as the “guarding-guardian” (“Wahrnis”) of the essence of Being. is concealed in the history of Being. As such. For en-framing “sets up” all entities as the disposable stock of a standing reserve. 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.

in its essence. the “same” is never the equal. The “world ” and en-framing are the “same” and thus. in such a way. . that is to say. guards the presencing of the Being of entities. presencing (as an entity) as such in the prevalent manner of the “neglect” of the thing. enframing is the essence of Being. Even less would the “same” be the indifferent togetherness of the identical. On the other hand. “Sameness” is “savedness”. that is to say. eclipsed in the dispensation that characterises the epoch in which Being as en-framing is fully deployed. probably. An epoch that is one of the complete “neglect” of things through en-framing. retained therein. remain opposed to each other. the most visible and. The world. in the narrower sense of the term. En-framing is the essence of modern technology. That is to say. remains concealed. Yet. that is to say. Even though it is this very concealment that underpins the unconcealment of entities and. the dispensation of the “worlding” of things as things. En-framing is Being itself. complete expression of its history. even up to the outermost expressions of their respectives essences.9 This is how en-framing relates to all presencing as such. that which is necessarily dispensed and “guarded” in such a self-enowning rapport and. The world and en-framing are the “same”. The “same” is rather the rapport of the different. that is to say. The essence of en-framing is the Being of entities (neither above or beyond them) which is now entirely forgot there. 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.

from Aληθεια. the “guarding” and the “rendering true” of the essence of Being. Through the “setting up” that underpins the disposing of a standing reserve.10 Yet. Yet. sets itself upon the path charted by the hegemony of en-framing whilst the world is estranged through the “neglect” of things. as the essence of Being. Thus. . en-framing lets unconcealment and its essence fall into complete oblivion. As long as en-framing prevails. En-framing. In the essence and the institution of en-framing. the occurence of the “worlding” of the world is thus stalled. that is to say. everything seems of an equally disposable value. “sets up” Being outside the truth of its essence and therefore pits Being against its own very essence. In so far as en-framing “sets up” all entities as disposables in a standing reserve. that is to say. 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. the opposition between the world and en-framing is no mere representable opposition of two present objects. the lack of distance and contrast prevail. 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. it also “sets up” the presencing of entities from its essential origin. Such an opposition dispenses itself as the expression of the very deployed essence of Being. En-framing lets. an opposition that would be “present-at-hand”. through the “setting up” that underpins all disposing of a standing reserve as such. that is to say. The world.

it imposes an ontological state whose imposition presupposes the completion of the forgetting of all “worldling”. In such a manner. on the other hand. The world and en-framing are the same. in such a way that the world is pitted against itself in a concealed manner in the context of en-framing. En-framing. The world is the “rendering true” of the essence of Being. The “same” in question here (which is the differentiated essence of Being) finds itself in an opposition (from within itself) and.11 The dispensation of the said stalling underpins the concealed distance that separates from the “worlding” of the world12. such an estrangement reflects the greatest proximity of that which is most distant from the world. indeed. Rather. 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” . one can not say that nothing comes from the world. a ray that reflects the distant origin of the world. In so far as the world estranges itself from its own “worlding”. not only severs itself from the concealed “worlding” of the world but it also “sets up” all entities as disposables in a standing reserve. In en-framing. as the most complete dispensation of the forgetting of the essence of Being. En-framing is the most complete forgetting of the truth of Being. nevertheless. shines forth. that is to say. en-framing persecutes and “up-sets” the truth of the essence of Being13. They are the different facets of the essence of Being.

as the world and en-framing (different facets of the essence of Being).12 dispensed in the essence of en-framing. “up-setting”. Being (“Seyn”) as Being is. “up-sets” its own essence through its own forgetting. Thus. that is to say. Rather. first and foremost. 14 Here. This essential dangerousness is the mode in which. 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 ”. In this “up-setting”14 lies. simply. the danger lies in Being’s reversal. As the “up-setting” that persecutes. Being opposes and destitutes itself. Thought in the context of the estrangement of the world and the “neglect” of things. in and out of itself the danger to itself. In so far as Being persecutes and “up-sets” itself as en-framing and “sets up” the forgetting of its own essence. Being as Being is the danger. In old High German. the danger to its own very essence. which dispenses and deploys itself as en-framing. is thus the most characteristically distinctive manner of persecuting. For us the thought that Being dispenses itself as its own danger may appear strange and easily misunderstood. The danger is the self-assembling “setting up” as persecutory “up-setting”. indeed. 15 Turned upside down (“umgekhert”) . persecutory “up-setting” (“nachstellen”) is called “fara”. The innermost essence of all “setting up”. as the “same”. Being is. that is to say. Being is the danger15. “Up-setting” is indeed the ground of the essence of the danger. which is here thought from out of its own “up-settingly” persecutory essence. we can only think the above-mentioned thought correctly when we formulate it in the following manner: Being. that is to say. must in no way be thought as endowed with a “dangerous” character. 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.

The essence of technology is enframing. the essential danger that characterizes Being’s self-relation even though entities are everywhere beset with all manner of danger and distress. in its very essence. We do not experience. profoundly that is. We do not at all experience the danger as the danger. en-framing thus displays its essential dangerousness. “Up-setting” the essence of Being. 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. is the danger to itself. The essence of en-framing is the danger. The greatest danger lies in the perspective wherein the danger as the danger is concealed and not recognised as such. 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. The realm of the dangerousness of the danger. as en-framing and through the “neglect” of things. The essence of all error lies in the essence of Being as the danger. We do not experience en-framing as the selfpersecutory and “up-setting” disguise of Being’s own essence. The danger is the self-gathering “upsetting” which. 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.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. Therein. Being. Yet. . persecutes the self-estranged world with the forgetting of its truth. it may happen that we may not become aware of this essence of Being that is a danger to its own very essence.

A manner that is underpinned by the general disposition which aims at alleviating all suffering as such. Its oft reduced to that which perplexes and squeezed as the insoluble.14 Instead of re-orienting us towards the danger that lies in the very essence of Being. Assuredly. God16.Indeed. the Di-stress is not experienced as Di-stress. 16 Granted that God is not Being itself but the most being of beings (“das Seiendste”). One which. where the danger conceals itself. only that which is not fundamentally dangerous expresses itself within the overall context of numerous and contingent forms of distress. tribulations and distress of varying sorts make us blind to the danger. a Distress comes to revolve around it. there the Di-stress is bound to veil itself. in the midst of particular dangers. leaves no possible means untested and indeed alleviates a great variety of suffering and soothes many a distress. It may seem that Being itself is innocuous. one still fails to take into account the Di-stress itself. as which the essence of en-framing dispenses itself in the framework of the domination of technology. who can now dare say that a God thus represented is the Danger for Being ? . the latter’s most dangerous quality lies in that it does not show itself as a danger. Such a Distress di-stresses. is greatest when. The danger. the entity that is most endowed with being. There. Some may even think that it is the emptiest and the most general concept there is and. All the same. One encounters much distress and suffering and attempts to eliminate or diminish these in a case by case manner. in so doing. as far as alleviating insignificant cases of suffering is concerned. In the wake of every danger. what could be less harmless than that if not an even emptier concept? Another such concept is the Being of the ultimate “same”. thus. that is to say. namely.

Everyone suffers distresses and yet no one really perseveres in the Di-stress. one can ask. As such. Thus. We can only assume and bear this movement only when our own essence corresponds to the essence of death and makes its expression possible. Dying means bringing death unto its essence. the very essence of death remains disguised. do they die? They perish and are dispersed. even though it is veiled.15 As far as the Di-stress is concerned. millions now sink in utter misery and end up perishing of hunger in China. the apparent lack of Di-stress is the authentic distress. Death is neither pure nothingness nor is it a mere transition from one entity to another. Thus. Hundreds of thousands die on a mass scale. Death is the highest mountain range (“höchste Gebirg der Wahrheit des Seyns selbst”) and the precious hearth of the “truth” of Being. 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. it shelters the very essence of Being. . the seeming lack of Di-stress rules in the midst of external dangers. Besides all of this. the danger does not persistently manifest itself as such. Do they really die? They become the stock of a standing reserve set up to fabricate corpses. In truth. that is to say. the greatest danger. Being able to die means that one can indeed assume and bear the movement of such a bringing-unto. Do they die? They are liquidated in death camps in an inconspicuous manner. in the midst of untold deaths. Death belongs to and springs forth from the essence of men’s existence dispensed by Being. Yet.

. that is to say. Man is thus no longer mortal. the essence of poverty conceals itself. that which is great receives its greatness. Therein. Whoever can die is mortal only in a sense that is derived from and dependent on the original sense of these words. The flood tide of sorrow and misery rises. the highly saved saves its saving as such. unspoken and gruesome instances of disconcerting death abound and yet the essence of death remains disguised and inaccessible to men. Immeasurably great suffering creeps and rages over the earth. A gruesome impoverishment spreads itself around. Death is the Hearth of Being in the Poem of the World. Yet. that which is great for men as such. 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. Yet. The rift of suffering thus traverses the complete stretch from the expression of goodwill to an uncharted port of grace and compassion. Mass scale suffering. From out of this ground. In the rift of suffering. we remain deprived of suffering since we are not enowned and claimed by the essence of suffering. Corresponding and making possible the expression of death is called being able to die. 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. Yet. Suffering is the rift (“der Riss”) wherein the very ground of the fourfold of the world displays itself in all its particularity (“eingezeichnet ist”). Unspeakable and immense grief oppresses us everywhere. The herd of the poor grows and grows.16 That is to say. the essence of suffering conceals itself.

The Danger masks itself in as much as it disguises itself though enframing. one hears everywhere such a judgement passed on technology in a sufficiently loud and forceful manner. thus. we shall continue to misinterpret technology. albeit imperceptibly. In what sense is it odd and peculiar? In that.17 Therein. Indeed. Suffering. that is to say. 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. technology. Death. the hearth and the rock of Being. We may even be tempted to resume the preceding and detailed discussion of technology. That is to say. we either think too little of technology or linger too long thereupon. . precisely we shall misinterpret it now that everything seems determined through the manifold expressions of technology and its various realisations. Indeed. the Danger makes it appears that the Distress is lacking in the midst of the surrounding distresses and. Poverty. the Danger is not the danger. Some even go farther in their judgement. it is dispensed that the simple wherewithal of the essential be brought. The latter fully realises itself in that of which it is the essence as such. the ownmost freeing of Being unto itself. That is why our attitude towards technology is so odd and peculiar. the very ground of Being. therein. are remarkable in as much as. to belong to the innermostness where the thing may indeed inhabit a saved world. en-framing and the Danger by concluding that technology must be a danger.

Thus. ethics or religion. 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. . concerns and relates to them. as one among many other so-called “realities”. Today. Rather. One that shall certainly decline in the wake of the irresistible sway of technology. they think of technology within the perspective of its accomplishments and in relationship to the whole of reality as such. These do not think technology on the basis of its essence and origin. In many different ways. 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. they determine dominant. the latter does not contradict our judgement of or attitude towards technology. with these man reckons how technology.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. politics. contradiction as such does not amount to a valid objection. In any case. Here. to wit. For what does not contradict itself in our existence and nevertheless remains real. Technology is described is the catastrophe of the modern world. such judgements are passionately pronounced as warnings that can frigthen and discourage us. culture. By which one means that which lies outside the domain of technology’s essence.

steering technology in a manner worthy of man through human action. one would miss the possibility of accomplishing of what one fundamentally aspires to. One therefore thinks of technology technically. how could we do this humanely. namely. The mentioned characterisations never think the essence of technology. Our comportment towards technology remains confused and fragmented. Indeed. they remain no more than superficial prejudices. Indeed. By not venturing upon the path of thinking. given that their judgements on technology do not spring forth from the domain of its essence. so little can they make headway in attaining it that they even forbid access to it. Technology is thus subordinated to the power of technical evaluations. so long as the question of the essence of technology and its essential relationship to man’s essence . 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 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. in grand style and in conformity with an historically dispensed sense. By retching itself up in such a way. Moreover. Yet.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. technical judgements on technology never attain its essence.

One says that technology is neutral in character and all depends on how one engages with it and what one makes out of it. 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. instead. All is decided by whether man can steer technology in a moral and religious manner. There are interpretations of technology which assert that it is neither something evil nor something good.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. one thinks it as little in terms of its own essence as through its previously mentioned interpretations. that is to say. through such a meditation on technology. continue to mull over it in a technical fashion. A view such as the foregoing does not naysay the seriousness of our responsibility in tackling technology and yet. The essence of technology itself is not technical. But technology does not exclusively consist of the technical and conceals its essence therein. 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. . we shall not be able to make any appropriate decision concerning technology. technically.

21 Admittedly. some hold technology to be something neutral and evaluate it as such. oft portrays it in the context of its invariably positive appraisals and wishes to undertake and complete a worthy explication of it. By interpreting technology as a means. experience and think it as en-framing. For. that is to say. the implicit claim of such a thinking is that of appreciating technology in a way that can hardly be surpassed by contemporary thought. be it an essential or an inessential one. in all these representations and valuations the phenomenon of technology is approached in an exterior and unessential manner. Whoever takes technology to be a means. Indeed. when one seeks to think the essence of technology within the prevalent and universal framework of the consolidation of “setting up” as such. . In truth. For it is regarded as some being among many others whereas it is in technology and as technology that Being deploys and dispenses itself. something divine or something neutral. 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. in all of them technology is viewed as an means to an end. On the other hand. its captious appearance is deceptive. technology is devalued (in its essence) whenever it is regarded as a means or a tool. one places and situates it in the hands of man and represents it as a reality among many other realities. however. Whether one holds technology to be something diabolical.

For this very reason. that. all the while. 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. 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. the very essence of technology. 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. here and there.22 Yet. men have also blindly followed this path and. technology is not. when one realises. technical. 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. in the end. it is technology that has inverted the equation by drawing man behind it as its instrument. en-framing carries out such a disguise. that is to say. unwittingly travailed themselves over how to use technology in a healthy and useful manner. Indeed. technology can indeed be . Whereas. Quite possibly. in truth. Be that as it may. first and foremost.

The perplexing fear of the supposedly demonic character of technology and its supposedly tragic consequences is. For it is the concealed ground of the reality of all that is now real.in and through thinking. in truth. In an epoch of distress such as ours. can indeed be delimited as the domain of the real. It essence institutes beyond the domain of means and ends in a domain which is determined by all primordial realisation as it were and. 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 its essence.through the use of grandiloquent and unexamined expressions. 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.23 something other than a mere means. technology is no reality in the midst of many others. as such. that is to say.to free oneself of the spell which has been cast on man’s essence by that of technology’s. technology is neither a means to an end nor an end in itself. . δαζμουες. ηυχη. anguish in face of the thinking which thinks what is. That is to say. and of Destiny. once shone and “guarded”. a thinking which soberly seeks its path-beyond the mere stunting or sharpening of the intellect and sentimentalism. The ground of all reality is presence. Presencing belongs to the very essence of Being. one oft trys. In its essence.

that is to say. en-framing. 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. the essence of enframing is the Danger. The word “setting up” (“stellen”) is derived from the Greek term θεζις provided. 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. . Yet. as Being. The essence of the Danger is Being itself in so far as it “sets up”. The Danger is not enframing as technology but. rather. Such a taking into consideration of that which is Greek is singularly more difficult than the practice of classical philology. Let us think clearly: enframing itself is not the Danger since dangeorus and threatening consequences can supposedly spring from the essence of technology.24 The essence of technology is Being in the essential form of enframing. 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. spoke every word of this language. it is designated here with the unfamiliar expression. In this case. at the very outset. Since the essence of technology should not be thought as being more restricted than that of Being’s. that is. It means thinking. persecutes (“nachstellt”) the “truth” of its own essence through its forgetting. we think in the Greek manner. 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.

Such a “setting up” springs from Φυαις in such a way that it is determined by the same Φυαις and within its very domain.. Being. therefrom. Let us note that. must be thought as the assembling of all growth. At which point. 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. we must note (this must still be further refined) that enframing must be thought of as an outgrowth of the former and.e. . In the world of the Greeks. i. Thus. a crucial difference bespoke through terms such as θυζει and θεζις. be thought in relation to Being. as such.25 That is why it is more exposed to error than the mentioned science. “up-setting” and persecuting (“nach-stellen”). θεζει. the rapport between Being and “setting up” announced itself in the first epoch of the history of Being. 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. The difference concerned the manner of the presencing of that which is present as such. What this means is that within Φυαις a certain θεζις-like character is concealed. Thinking in the Greek manner does not mean merely turning to lessons in classical philology. What would the word θεζις mean when we think in the Greek manner? θεζις means “setting up” and positing. in retrospect. En-framing: the assembling of “setting up” in the mentioned sense of ordering. θεζς must.

Rather. We do not however use the term “bringing forth” in its usual and harmless connotation here. educing and bringing forth of all presence from out of concealment into unconcealment. At the dawn of Being’s history. What is strange is that for a hundred years one has never sought to question and examine this rapport. that is. This bringing means that one lets something come forth from out of itself17. comes to assume a standing and permanent character. through all human “setting up” in installation. can a given entity (a rock) and. one whose explication may not seem necessary. “bringing forth” means bringing here unto unconcealement from concealment. 17 Λδγος: Bringing forth into setting forth. Φνζις is the selfilluminating arising of bringing-forth as such. Only when Φυζις disposes. in what sense and in what manner does a θεζις-like character deploy itself in Being. Only when such a “bringing forth” in the “mounting”(“Hervorbringen An-gebrachtes”)of an entity deploys (“anwest”) itself. θεαις is possible and necessary. let set forth. 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.26 It is not strange that the essence of Being has forged an essential rapport with “setting up” and positing. 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. Thought in the Greek sense of Φυζις. Φυζις ? The latter means the self-illuminating arising. from it and through human “setting up”.

self-installing in unconcealment is letting entities present themselves into unconcealment19. 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 . is dispensed as en-framing20. in Φνζις. both that which is brought before and onto. Φνζις showed itself to be a “self-bringing forth” whose character is that of a “setting up”. Yet. Φυζις. unconcealment is alloted to all human ordering and directing as such whilst a sheltering within unconcealment is also brought about and “set up”. Yet. a “setting up” that is a self-installation through entities into unconcealment . entities. rather. In which. the latter underpins the fact that. that is to say. that which is thus brought to stand before us. are represented as standing before us in a permanent fashion.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 . into concealment has not been “brought forth” through some human installing18 but. through the essence of Being and its history. that is to say. 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. 18 19 ποιησις Bringing into Proximity. Bringing in the manner of Φνζις is a disposing out of itself. to guard and save all “pre-sencing” 20 This sounds ambiguous (!) . Therefrom and early on. Nevertheless. Letting entities thus present themselves is the Being of entities. through that which “brings itself forth” before us. that is to say.

unconcealment’s claim to entities has not been a silent one. Indeed. That is to say. The essence of technology bears the name en-framing since in the “setting up” of all en-framing Being itself is to be found. 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.28 Nevertheless. from Φυιζς. seems to be essentially interchangeable with “setting up” in the sense of Φυζις. Being. Wherein. has illumined itself as Φυιζς.derives its name. . Being an echo is both rarer and more difficult than having an opinion and defending standpoints. “setting up” deploys itself in the manner of the “upsetting set up”of en-framing which. Since the early epoch of Greek thought. unconcealment has come to claim entities as their fulfilled originary essence. one which has emerged from out of Φνζις. as “setting up” that emerges and “brings forth” out of itself. Being which. by virtue of a common and concealed origin. Being an echo is the suffering of thinking. since the beginning of its history. From the essence of Being. it was last bespoken in Nietzsche’s conception of the Will to Power that deploys itself as the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. The geneaology of en-framing as the essence of technology has been situated in the essential origin of the European-planetary history of Being. 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.which deploys itself as enframing. The term enframing names the essence of technology. What a thinker says of Being is not his opinion.

when used to speak of technology to whose thinking it belongs. 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”. Wherein. 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. that is to say. A thinking that is infinitely more difficult and fraught with danger than the oft cited and supposedly authoritative objectivity of scientific research. “setting up”. The international character of all scientific language is the strongest proof of its homelessness and rootlessness. namely. “setting up” comes to language in the latest epoch of the modern history of Being. posited and set by whom? The human subject? With what right? . namely.29 One whose quiet sobriety bespeaks its passion. 21 Yet. However. to determine an epoch of Being whilst its essence. To be an echo. as the positedness and the being set of objects or entities21. That which in the early history of Being in the essence of Φνζις was concealed in Θεζις. The term en-framing serves. lies in the early history of Being (Φνζις Θεζις ). to bespeak the claim of Being requires an accuracy of language of which the technico-technological linguistic style of sciences assuredly knows nothing. 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.

technology is the self-ordaining assemblage of positing in the sense of “setting up” of all entities in the “set-up”. Glossary of Some Key Concepts German Terms: das Abstandlose: A-letheia (Α-ληθεια): 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”)? . 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. In conformity with its essence.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. 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.

31 Ausbleiben: Beistellen: Βergen: Bergung: Bereich: Beseitigen: Bestellen: Bestand: Bestandstück: Betreiben: Beruhen: Entgegensetzung: Entziehen: Er-eigen: Ereignis: Das Gebirge: Die Gefahr: Gehalten: Gehüten: 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 Being’s 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 Nähe: 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 Thing’s Loss of its “Truth” To Disguise Preserving the “Truth” Rendering “True” Essence (noun)/ To deploy (verb) Train/ Current (of Thought) .

Pronouncement) Thesis (Positing) Phusis(Nature-Being) . Saying. Hiddenness) Logos (Discourse.33 Greek Terms: Αληθεια Ληθη Λδγος Θεζις Φνζις Aletheia (“Truth” as Un-concealment) Lethe (Concealedness.

34 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful