enter our daily world and at the same time leave them outside";¹²⁹ we would pass "by the sciences without despising them."¹³⁰ These are unmistakably features of the potential within technology. What, then, would "the other thinking" be, the one which is hardly adumbrated by the phenomenology of technology as the era of closure? This is much more difficult to describe. It would have left behind the Janus-like ambiguities of calculating-meditating, science-thought, etc., and would have turned Proteus-like. The difficulty of describing it led Heidegger for some years into the vicinity of Hölderlin's poetry. To think, he would then say, is to "dwell poetically."¹³¹ To be sure, Heidegger claims anticipatory thought as his own, but just as surely he does not claim for himself the thinking he seeks to prepare or anticipate. For that, deconstructive phenomenology is still too closely bound to academic traditions, not yet simple, schlicht, enough.¹³²

In addition to the dependency of man—of thinking-on our economic site, that is, on the double-faced line of closure, this category shares the poverty of all last categories in the table: like nous and 'overman', the category of 'corresponding/thinking' needs the preceding ones to be fully operative. Anticipatory thinking remains flush with 'things' emerging in the 'world'; its proper is sue is no longer the 'ontological difference', but multiple presencing as multiple. It responds to the 'favor' that bestows upon us ever varying economic constellations. It gathers 'the event' and lets those constellations be as they arrange and rearrange themselves, always transitory. It keeps itself exposed to the ever new 'clearing'. Lastly, it discovers itself to be mortal, drawn into the 'fourfold' flux and cast in a role it has neither created nor produced, and where it does not play the lead . The anticipated thinking can only go very far in the dispersion which already characterizes anticipatory thinking: the unceasing newness mandated jointly by all the other categories renders it host to an irreducible plurality of meanings.¹³³ If the state of affairs this thinking anticipates is an economy deprived of principles, then the noetic drive to oneness will have to remain content with merely categorial unities within economic multiplicity. As 'thanking', thinking will comply with systemic diffractions despite and against all archai and principia: "Only a multivocal thinking attains an utterance that responds to the issue of such a state of aff airs ," a state of affairs which is itself "intrinsically manifold."¹³⁴