Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Being strained to extend the powerful region, that of confrontation with the work


So sehen wir uns aus dem weitesten Bereich, in dem alles ein Ding ist (Ding = res = ens = ein Seiendes), 
auch die höchsten und letzten Dinge, auf den engen Bezirk der bloßen Dinge zurückgebracht. 
Das >>bloß,, meint hier einmal: das reine Ding, das einfach Ding ist und nichts weiter; das »bloß<< 
meint dann zugleich: nur noch Ding in einem fast schon abschätzigen Sinne. Die bloßen Dinge, mit 
Ausschluß sogar der Gebrauchsdinge, gelten als die eigentlichen Dinge. Worin besteht nun 
das Dinghafte dieser Dinge? Aus ihnen muß sich die Dingheit der Dinge bestimmen lassen. 
Die Bestimmung setzt uns instand, das Dinghafte als solches zu kennzeichnen. So 
ausgerüstet, können wir jene fast handgreifliche Wirklichkeit der Werke kennzeichnen, 
worin dann noch etwas Anderes steckt. 

We thus see ourselves returned from the broadest domain in which everything is a thing 
(thing = res = ens = a being) - including even the "first and last things" - to the narrow 
region of the mere thing. "Mere," here, means, sometimes, the naked thing which is simply 
a thing and nothing more. But then it also means "simply a thing," in an almost disparaging 
sense. It is the mere thing- a category which excludes even the things that we use which 
counts as the actual thing. In what, now, does the thingliness of things such as this consist? 
It is in reference to these that it must be possible to nominate (to title) the thingliness of the thing. 
Such a determination puts us in a position to characterize thingliness as such. Thus equipped, 
we will be able to indicate that almost tangible reality of the work in which something other is kept.

The interpretation can not stay only with what is distinctly expressed in the text but in circling this it 
avoids the vague meanderings of personal interpretation by letting what is in the work with the title 
Heidegger come to life in the interpretation. Such a standard can not be adequately set aside on 
the grounds that the standard is not objective in the passing sense of the moment. What only stays 
with the text is simply decay and never speaks for the work. Rather, it speaks, e.g., for a regime of 
classics, which itself is the work of an age, its forces and specific tasks. The fundamentally 
mysterious unity of any work is not alive when the text is thought as a thing to be defended 
against false interpretation, vivified for linguistic currentness, and made fluent for the appreciative 
reader of the classics and great texts of the philosophic tradition. Philology is set aside in all 
confrontation which aims at reaching the matter of the work of a text. 

Broad domains always threaten to become generalizations. Ergo, to no longer speak to us from 
what is extended to us as our being. In this sense, seeking this region is always connected to 
a being that thinks language as speaking one. Language as speaking one is as much being as 
being one. Ergo, being is never what avails for the human being, what the human being uses. 
The thing is linked to thinking oneself as what has available to oneself that which avials in being, 
as what is there as the bare thing. Instead, here, thinking attempts to think as being, 
as being being = language speaking. This never means, however, a acting out as a performing 
of being. Rather, it means: the thing is not available. Nothing is to be known in the work, when 
it is art, for knowing is connected to the demand that the thing avail as what “works”. 
What works is most of all technology, which works in that it shows the inmost lack in the 
human when the work of technology improves, when it “gets better” as what is left of Progress 
(i.e., in what has long lain hidden under a dark layer, unobserved and lost to thought, 
in the Enlightenment thinking which ceased to exist when reason ceased to 
be animus apart from anima, intellect as apart from passion, phusis as what is not ratio, and so on.) 

The Essence of Technology is never a mere tool, like logos as what would avail man. 

Even when this is thought, and most of all when logos does not mean Nietzschean tools, 
as of the morbid monkey that blushes. Most of all when the heightened logos, as Sophia, 
is the universal morality, as what transcends local (cultural in the modern sense) relativity. 
The Essence of Technology, as much as it is a metaphysic, as the End of metaphysics, 
as the energia of the world (the natural laws as the Science of Nature, as the  
a priori knowledge of what all else depends on), is no mere mistake in the sense 
that it changes, new findings upset old ones, it is not wisdom proper, one can still 
go on with the old searching, rather, it is the culmination of power, of what avails, 
of the inner unity of the west, now the planetary motivation of a being, the human 
being, as Da-sein, come to hear what it was most of all drawn to in the call of its 
essential history. This is why, in thinking away from the thing, though while still thinking 
with the essential history, one must be touched by the leading string of this history in 
order that one may sense the power of its furthermost movement as what is not thinking.  

1 comment:

  1. If he loses, the sequence turns into 2-3-5, and the following guess is $7 -- the 토토사이트 sum of the numbers on both finish. A win at $7 would cancel the two and the 5, leaving $3 as the following guess. Print out a picture of a European wheel, draw a line from 0 to 1 to 2 to 3 and so on, all greatest way|the way in which} as much as} 36, and you’ll see another nice example of random distribution in motion. With nearly all of the numbers in sequence , you’ll be leaping from one aspect of the wheel to the other. We are taking orders, delivery daily, and we're right here to reply your questions.