IV. The Leap [274-275]

essential is only the historical necessity in the history of the truth of beyng whose era is dawning.

How do matters stand with "machination" (technology), and how are all shelterings gathered together in it, or, first and foremost, how is the reaching out of the abandonment by being entrenched in it?

What is essential is the historical grounding power of sheltering (a power which grounds Dasein), as is also the decidedness toward this sheltering and toward its scope for the enduring of the event.

In accord with the types of "ontologies" proper to the different "realms" (nature, history), does there not yet remain at least a provisional way of creating a horizon for the projection according to being, whereby those realms might be experienceable in a new manner? Something like that could become necessary as transition; but it is still precarious inasmuch as it will be very tempting to slip from there into a systematics of the earlier style.

Yet if the "ordering" is a joining and is subject to the formation of history and to the enduring of its mystery, then this joining itself can, indeed must, possess a realm and a way; not just any arbitrary way of sheltering (such as technology) can be subjected to meditation.

It must be recalled here that sheltering is always the playing out of the strife between world and earth, that these pass under each other while surmounting each other, and that the sheltering of truth plays out first and foremost in their countercurrent.

World is "earthly" (earthy), earth is worldly. Earth, because it is related to history, is in one respect more originary than nature. World is higher than merely "created" things, because it is formative of history and so lies closest to the event.

Then does beyng indeed possess levels? Properly speaking, no; but neither do beings. Then what is the source and the sense of the manifold of shelterings? That cannot be explained and cannot be derived by reckoning up a plan of Providence. Yet what matters just as little is mere acceptance in representation. Instead, the issue is the decision in the historical necessities out of the respective era of the history of being.

What is technology supposed to be? How does technology stand, not in the sense of an ideal, but with regard to the necessity of overcoming the abandonment by being or of radically placing it up for decision? Is technology the historical path to the ending, to the reversion of the last human being into the technicized animal, the one that thereby loses even the original animality of the inserted animal? If technology is taken up beforehand as a sheltering, can it be inserted into the grounding of Da-sein?

Contributions to Philosophy (of the Event) (GA 65) by Martin Heidegger