the history of being is not an uncoiling process of the changes of a being that has let loose even as it stays independent. The history of being is not an objectively representable process, about which one could tell “stories of being.” The gathering-throw or shaping-sending of being remains inherently the ownmost history of Western man insofar as the one who is historical is in the employ of the building-dwelling of the clearing of being. As withdrawal that belongs to this handing-over or gathering-throw, being is inherently already relation to what is ownmost to man. However, being is not humanized [“made human”] by this relation; rather by this very relation man’s way of being [what is ownmost to man] remains housed at the site of being.18
Thus thinking that is seynsgeschichtlich thinks the handing-over or sending, gathering-throw, shaping-sending, carrying-forth that is be-ing as enowning. This handing-over, which en-owns Da-sein, inseparable from Da-sein’s projecting-open, is what be-ing is in its truth.
Thinking comes full circle when it, exigently, thinks Geschichte/Geschick within the context of be-ing’s turning-relation (kehriger Bezug) to Dasein. The essential swaying of be-ing as enowning (the elemental enactment of Contributions) is in its truth this encircling (counter-resonance) whereby in one stroke be-ing enowns Da-sein, and Da-sein, enowned by be-ing, projects be-ing open.
Gathering Geschichte, Ereignis, and Kehre—history, enowning, and the turning—in order to say the “between” of be-ing and Da-sein as a onefold, Heidegger writes:
What is ownmost to history in the deepest sense rests in the encleaving (truthgrounding) enownment which lets all those first emerge who, needing one another, mutually turn to and away from one another only in the enowning of the turning.
(GA 65, 311; CP, 219)
And what is Da-sein? “Da-sein is the occurrence [Geschehen] of the encleaving of the turning-midpoint of the turning in enowning” (GA 65, 311; CP, 218). And, “Dasein is: enduring the essential swaying of the truth of be-ing” (GA 65, 311; CP, 219).
The English word history cannot say all of the richness of the German word Geschichte. And yet it must! Can we open up what “history” says beyond and deeper than its “normal” meanings: systematic account of past events, compiling and recording, or the recorded past itself? Geschichte, Geschehen, Geschick: something happens, is carried forth, is set to work (Geschichte as Begebenheit). Seynsgeschichte: the getting going or setting to work of be-ing that is be-ing.
English usage intimates something of this “deeper” sense of history when we speak of “family history” or “medical history.” Neither means simply or only a systematic account or the recorded past. Rather, the phrases “family history” and “medical history” imply how things unfold,