Appendix 1: Two Heidegger Texts
‘These two texts by Heidegger appear here for the first time in English.
Both of these texts were written shortly after Heidegger had put the fine
ishing touches on Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning). L wish 10
thank Dr Herrmann Heidegger for permission to publish these trash
tions, Neither text has ever been translated into English. (All the foot:
notes in these texts are mine.)
‘Own to Philosophy’ is a translation of ‘Das Wesen der Philosophi
which was published in the Jatresgabe of the Martin-Heidegger-Geyell
schaft in 1987.! ‘Own to Humans (Mind in Enowning)’ isa translation of
“Das Wesen des Menschen (Das Gedichtnis im Ereignis)." published in
the Jahresgabe of the Martin-Heidegger- Gesellschaft in 1993.
Tam happy to include these texis in an appendix to my book, for sey
cral reasons, First, in these texts Heidegger is working with the ereative
possibilities offered by the German word Wesen as it applies to philoso-
phy and to human beings, possibilities that show in a direct way how
Wesen andl Ereignis are intimately bound together in what they say. This
intimate connection is manifest in how English gives us the word oun/
‘runing/encwning, 10 name this intricate connection, Second, within the
context of the name of Wesen or ‘own /owning,’ these texts take up what
is own to humans within the dynamic of the originary turning of enown-
ing. Third, this whole dynamie is thought in terms of what is own to ht
{osophy. This is the matter that I took up in the introduction of this book
1 Jahrb der Marin Hedger Geslchaf (1987), 21-90.
2 Jahingabe der Mortn Heider Gaslichot (198), 13-18,146 Heidegger's Possibility
and these texts ground that discussion, Fourth, these texts take up the
matter of philosophy and poetry, of language and the poetic ~ a core
concern when reading and engaging the text Beitrige sur Philosophie (Vor
Eneignis).
Tam confident that these Heidegger-texts will help the reader see and
hear and say the creative possibilities in Heidegger's thinking of these
‘matters, from enowning.
‘Own to Philosophy
No inquiring brings you all the way
‘To the open country of truth —
Return to the wordin-return (Antwort)
Rest, the hint's hinted one (Erwunkner],
Joyful in the freeing thanking {im freyersten Dank]
Only asthe ones who reside [ie Beruhenden}
‘Are we the dwellers
Who dwell in the house of favour,
(Minted [Er-yunken] = wellversed in the ache
‘of freedom [Freyheit], of the turn to leave-taking
aand twisting free [Verwindung).)
‘To experience what is own to philosophy means that we enter into the
relationship of philosophy to poeuy. Philosophy is thinking in the ele-
‘ment of thought. Poetry [Poesie] is singing in the element of song. (The
first line of the oldest ‘poctizing’ of the West names singing: ‘Sing of
wrath, oh goddess... .') The thought of the thinker is in the element of
the word, The song of the singer is in the element of the word. The word.
is the hintand the ringing of stillness. Stillness is the gathering of being
into returning to its truth.
Because thinking and singing sway in the element of the word, think-
ing is and singing is a saying [Sagen]. But saying embraces the hint and
the ringing of stillness. ILis the counter-word [Gegen-wort] to the word of
being. Saying is the wordin-return [Antwort] and in no way expression,
through language [Sprache]. For its in saying that language first arises,
In what is own to it, even language is not expression; it anly appears as
when itis used externally as means for communication.
ving takes place as thought and song. Saying is joined to the enown-
ing of hint and ringing of the word of stiliness.
Joining and saying the word in response, saying joins the word into the
fabric of the counter-word and foretells this to the
still waiting and unspoken language, so that language in its unfolding,
becoming, werdend> might dwell in the word of stillness. Language in its
deep sway opens out [ahndet) to the word and és this opening-out.®
8 Andis connected ahnen anal saps something Ii
‘utmise, Intimate, forebode’~ or, gal
iglimmer, sugges, foreshadow,
many of these nuances, ‘open out to,148 Heidegger's Possibility
Mere words [Warter rather than the more ‘saying’ Worte] have lost this
opening-out. Seraped together, they always form only the catalogue of
their quantity, bur never a language.
‘Joining and gathering the word and responding to the hinting and the ringing of stillness, the saying of thinking
and singing foretells the word of langage and fulfils
its openingout
‘Thus responding and foretelling, thinking, and singing in thought
and song, ‘dictates’ the word! into language. Thinking and singing are ~
as wordingin-retum ~ dictation of stillness, Dictare means in our [Ger-
‘man] language, Dichten [poi-eti saying].‘ Saying here means: the saying
alier that foretels [vorsagt] word into language.
Hidden and sheltered, what is own to thinking and singing is poietic
saying [Dichtung]. Thought and song restin it.The dynamic relation of
both to each other rests in it” This dynamic relation holds back, holds.
itself in hand, husbands both in hesitation, Poietic saying takes place
riginarily as the dynamic relation of both and releases them from out of
ness of being, poktic saying i
ing, because it is enowned from wi
as hinting and sounding . This twofold dwells [beruht]
in the equanimity [Ruhe] of the onefold. As this oncfold, enowning ~ in
4 Heidegger here is playing on the word dite (dictate) and its connection 4 dicon
{poctiing). He relers back to the Latin dita anlar to dictate snd to speak
The German is dichtn, Paul, Dentches Werertuch, th, rv, ed. (Tabingen: Niemeyer
1902). eichten’ naggess thin xame eomnection of the Geeman weet iio tn the
Latin dav, with the meaning of orden, herrcew (order, extablis) = which was
‘cered int the teal of the potic/Dichteng, through the wor schafen (reat, bring
forth) and then move “poetically: sinen, aussonen (use, dhink or layout) See “Die
Frage nach der Teck, ix Martin Heidegger, Verve wn Aufate (GA 7), 12 were
Heidegger says that eines is ‘advancing toward emergence. bringing forth Iti this
sense of bringingforth, creating laying-out, that said wlth the wort dihtn To say this
richness in English I have hyphenated the word porate Note: In ths wordimaging, what
inown tothe potcticis not the sume as what sent tothe poctic. For the poetic includes
Joh what own tothe singing of poetry and what sown co the thinking of pi
5 In his esay Heidegger uses three words to
fresh and vibrant dynamic of rolling whieh F
tation, the kind of reference that logic makes, which
andl (if) Bring which names some kind of relating bts opemended ato how it
5s lh the uso other words for ‘relation. Cave translated Aesohung as “onnection,
Ovn to Philosophy 149
onetime and unique way ~ turns the ache of dis-
enowning into favour (the secret of the buoyant).
Philosophy and poetry are the qwolold dynamic relation of poi-etie say-
ing. Poictic saying rests in the dynamic relation, thus what is meant is
not a static relation but the dynamic relation that holds 10
itself and preserves within itself that whieh is in dynamic relation, The
dynamic relation is the preserving gathering. This resides in the own-
hood of enowning.
But we do not yet know what po
ble of asking this questio
‘idation of the vistas in wh
coming.
Poi-ctic saying is the dynamic relation of thought and ofsong. Because
is their dynamic relation, whatis own to poetic saying as this dynamic
on cannot be experienced from philosophy or from poetry, Poetry
is as far from poi-ctic saying as is philosophy; but they are also equally
saying is. For we are barely capa-
Drawing attention t saying is only a first elu-
what is own to poietic saying announces its
In the dynamic relation that poi-etic saying as the saying of the hint
and of the ringing is, philosophy and poetry are the sate. ‘That says
‘They belong together in the onetold in which the twofold of the
dynamic relation resides, But then, becau are the same, itis in the
dynamic relation that they are in the purest sense held apart and thus
held to-each-other. We say: They are apart without yet knowing of the
g. Apart, they are neither identical to each oth
poictic saying, Poetry and poietic saying [Poesie und Dichtung] are not
identical. Without knowing this, poietic saying has for a ong time been
sought in poetry, just as philosophy seeks in metaphysics the 1
that, in what is its own, is poi-etie saying.
In the time to come ~ ie, thought from a coming (Fat
has been in its own ~ Hélderlin is the poet, because he has said poi-et
cally what is own to poietic saying. He was allowed to poi-ctically say it
because he is singer and thinker at the same time. By way of comparison,
whoever has thinkingly said even a litle of what is preserved in. Grund
sum Einpedohles and in Das Werden im Vergehen and. Cher die Religion and in
the notes to the translations of Oxdiprus Rexand Antigone, isa thinker who.
surpasses many who ate called thinkers, especially since he who thinks
like this is at the same timea singer ~ indeed, the singer of what is po-cti-
lly said in thinking. On account of this ‘at the same time,’ rather than
being less a philosopher, Hélderlin is more of a philosopher, and
uniquely so,150 Heidegger's Possibility
From within what is ‘own’ to the poietic saying just mentioned, we can
see why a poet [poi] is rare ~ ie., a singer who is both singer and
thinker, in that he sings the same as what he thinks and thinks the sime
as what he sings ~ whether the scale with the weight of what is own to his
destiny within the domain of enowning tilts toward the element of
thought or to the element of song, or whether both together become an
excess for human measure.
Because Hélderlin is a poet [poi-et), he had to write Empedokies, who
was himself'a thinker and a singer. Because Hélderlin is a poet, he (in
‘Hyperion, Pact 1, Book 2), under the title of Beauty’ and still thinking
metaphysically, intimated the origin of philosophy ~ and therefore per
haps was not yet able to know the difference between poetry and think-
ing, [tis for this same reason [thinking metaphysically} that what is own,
to art remains undetermined in Holderlin,
With metaphysics still dominating in Hyperion, and the nolonger-
metaphysical onefold of singing and thinking in mpedokles not yet
found, the dynamic relation that poietic saying is for poetry and philos-
ophy is more intimately experienced and said. ‘Philosophy’ does not dis-
appear; and if it disappears in its shape up to then, in the Elegien- and.
Hynnendichtung, then ‘poetry’ disappears as well. And in dialogue with
the poct, itis our task to experience poetic saying in its saying and to
bring it thinkingly to language.
But because we barely surmise what is own to poi-etic saying, we are
without guidance and awkward, tossing back and forth between philoso-
ighen we are called to interpret the ciphers of Hélder-
ng.
IF this interpreting is the distress and needfulness of the West and if't
is only in dialogue that such interpreting can come to language and thus
into the enowned word, then the dialogue with the poet must be a pot
etic one
‘And should the song and the singing of poietic saying prevail, in the
depth of the dynamic relation ~ in which poietic saying for Hélderlin is,
enowned [takes place, comes into its own] in the onefold of singing and
thinking saying ~ and should therefore the thinking of this saying have
not yet embedded itself in its poretic way of being, then the poietic dia-
logue with the poet would have to be of such an aptitude that in it the
thought and the enthinking of poietic saying prevails, because this
thinking would have to say the coming of what is own to poietic saying,
in and from within enowning.
In this dialogue the dynamic rela
on between poery and philosophy
‘Own w Philosophy 151
would first come to language. This dialogue would say poietic saying as
the saying of mind [Gedichtnis] in enowning,
‘This dialogue would say and in saying would enown the fact that the
dynamic relation between philosophy and poetry could get lit up only
within a dialogue of poietic thinking with poietic singing, a dialogue
which is historical [geschichtlich] only as a dialogue of the thinker with
the singer.® Ac the same time only this dialogue can say what philosophy
is, Insofar as its own is to rest in the dynamic relation that, as poi-etie say=
ing, holds philosophy and poetry gathered in the depth of their onefold
= ‘whose onefold is the stillness of the word that is first enowned within,
the word-in-return of saying.
‘To experience what is own to philosophy means to 1
relation to poetry ~and that
as the main feature of
from within enowning.
To think what is own 10 philosophy says: to poi-etically say enowning
from within its hinting, where the sheltering clearing of the wwisting free
of be-ing is enowned. But to think this is to join, in the poietic saying
thought, be-ing in its truth [Wahrheit]. To think what is own to philos-
‘phy means to think what of philosophy is that whieh is to be poi
said, meaning simply to think,
Thus mindfulness of what is own to philosophy is not a subsequent or
«4 preceding reflection about philosophy but is rather the thinking leap
imo the middle of potetic saying thinking itself.
Only in the singing of the song is the same possible: to po‘-etically say
what is own to poetry,
In thinking and in singing, the poietic saying of what is own to poietic
saying is the sign of their simple belonging-together, which in enawning.
is enowned to mind. This entrusts the truth [Wahrheit] of be-ing, in its
twisting free, to the turningsin to the equanimity of enowning abiding,
Saying of mind grants the quiet of enowning to the texture of language.
nk its dynamic
in poetic saying
ind, which has its enowned own in the thanking.
5 Gashihtich eters te
torical
‘o the dynamic unfolding within the history of heang, oF the hi
ing of be-ing as opposed to the historiography of mere history as aise
say Heideguer hyphen:
1 tuth of
Warde, ruth tn allo these
img anel wants to say the dyna quality ofthis
teuth ~ one might think “trthing” In thee specific instances I have put the German
‘word in brackets. Note that this seme th
mans (Mind in Enowning).”
mjppens in the secon text, ‘Own to Hi152 Heidegger's Possibility
Mind is the simple wordkin-retum of the simple turn of be-ing. in its
truth. Therefore, the thinking and the singing pot-etic saying of what is
‘own to poietic saying is enowning of the folding-intoone [Einfachhei
of philosophy and of poetry.
However, as long as what is their own remains concealed, it must seem
as if mindfulness of what is own to philosophy ~ as well as the singing of
what is own fo song ~ is a confused excess of reflection that could arise
‘only out of the incapacity to think and to
‘The unfortunate fear that the emptiness of a helpless addiction to
reflection might hide out in the poietic saying of what is own to poietic
saying ~ this fear will continue (o spread as long as thinking and singing.
are taken to be a human activity and the human being is taken to be a
subject, ie.,a personality, a creator, a genius.
But the tricky thing about this lies in the fact that the nwisting free of
the dominion of this way of being human (ie., of the subjectivity of ani
‘mal rationale) can only be overcome through the experience in which
what is own to man reveals itself as mind in enowning. But the basic fea-
ture of mind is po‘etie saying, whose own can only be experienced and
said po‘-eticall
Holderlin writes (II, 2468), ‘For the most part poets spring up at the
beginning and at the end of a world-epoch. With song peoples climb out
of the heaven of their chikthood into active living and into the land of
‘culture. With song they return from there to original living, Avt is the
transition from nature (o civilization and from civilization to nature.”*
What Holderlin says of song’ and of ‘art hasa still deeper truth, ifwe
think what is named as the own of po‘-etic saying and experience it in its
dynamic relation (o the historical unfolding of Western history.
In poi-etic saying, truth is enowned to the aptitude of what is own to
man ~ truth that is actually preserved in the word of the wordin-rerurn
as the language of the peoples. History takes place and is enowned poi-
tically —and with that, dwells in poetry ~ because itis poi-tie saying, the
higher truth over againstall merely historiographical, ie., non-pok-etical,
technical designation and representation of history.
Not only is the rise of history poi-etic, but above all the transition of
one world-epoch of history into the coming one is poietic. For, such a
ng
18 This refers to Friedrich Hoel, Sadek Wks, v
Philwphiscte Fragnente ed, Nonbert von Hellngra
rich Seebase (Berlin: Propylien, 19), 2466
3, Sided, Gedihte. Empat,
Lat vor Pigenor, an Fried
hilosophy 153
transition takes place only as a goingamder, which we should not think
of either as end or as return to nature. The goingaunder is the rising/
‘opening [aufgehende] dawn of the beginning. More poietic than its his
torical passage in mind is no history at all
‘Therefore, in going-umder, thinking and singing are enowned into the
pure dialogue that lets the poietic sayers be more and more poietic, so
that the dynamic relation, in which potetie saying unites the thought
and the song, can be purely enowned in the saying.
Now, is it rue that the connection between philosophy and poetry, as
it sit up in poietic saying, has remained hidden up to now? It rem
hidden and yet became known now and then, at least as a conne
although not as relation,
Several times already it has been noted that philosophy and poctry ~
which one takes as creative activities ~ are engaged in the stuff of lan-
guage. But with the muddted view about what is own to language and
oven to this engagement, the notion poietic saying, Le., the word-inteturn to the
word of being. Therefore, they are saying, ie. presaying, which can
only be (seyn] as sayingafter. Sayingafter sways in the supple attentive
ness to the hint and ringing ofstillness. man were notable to hear the
stillness, then what is his own would remain excluded from poi-eticsay-
ing: it could not even be un-poketic ~as itis most of the time:
‘That philosophy becomes thinking in the sense of remembering the
ruth [Wahrcheit] of being .."
°Comments?
The manuscript breaks off here. The following page or pages of the man:
uscript have 10 be presumed to be lost. The manuscript is undated; it
probably stems from the first half of the 1940s, The abbreviations on the
title-page and the first page of the manuscript refer to the following,
unpublished sketches: Die Dichtung: @hooosia-Tloinars; Uber den Spruch
pt by Hermann Heldeyger154 Heidegger's Possibility
‘primum vivere deinde philosophati’ or Von der Notwendighit des Unni
gen.” In the wanscription presented here the puncwation has been
‘carefully amended, while peculiarities of Martin Heidegger's style have
been retained.
10) The abbreviations referred to here do not appear inthe transcribed version of this
‘extol in the reproduction of Heidegger's manuscript This eitorial note by Her
‘mann Heideyger seis out the abbreviations and thus supplies al the information com:
the abbreviations
tained wil
Owit to Humans (Mind in Enowning)
Man is the mind (Gedachtnis] in enowning."!
Usually mind is considered the receptacle for retaining what man
experiences. Now’ mind [Gedachinis] qualifies as a bringingtomind
[Gedenken}, which, in keeping in mind [andenkend] what once was
nd willbe, is indebted tothe unique. Mind thinks ahead unto what is to
come. Mind thinks back to what has been. ‘Thinking ahead to what will
be and thinking back to what once was, mind thinks over both as one
and same, from within which and unto which everything has already
Mind thinks into the distance of this one arrival, in and as which the
nearing of the unique gets lit up.
‘Thanking that keeps in mind opens itself tothe favour of the unique ~
the favour that owns thanking to itself, so that it [the unique} remain
preserved as the truth of be-ing and sheltered in the way of being own to
it, Sheltering of the unique in mind is the own, owningovertogether of
be-ing ancl of man — in what is own to him ~ to enowning:
In mind enowning ‘is’ = that is to say, from now on enowns and is
‘enowned, Mind is the place for what i own to man. Mind grants to man
the whole fabric of his dwelling. (See, more broadly, ‘Vom Wesen der
Sprache.’)!2
Dwelling in this place, man is afforded into the holding [Wahrung] of
the truth (Wahr-heit} that besing is enowned as, Man so afforded is his-
torical man,
Historical man is the mind in enowning ~ not mind as capacity andl
activity of man and as grounded in the “substance” of man, but rather
‘what is own to man is grounded in mind. This isthe dweling in which
man dwells, tending it
Mind guards what is own to man in hs being-alled to the thanking
that keepsin-mind. Mind isthe refuge in which man dwells and what is
11 In normal usage Giddcanis means ‘memory’ or “remembrance. However,
‘ches Wortebuc, says for this word, ‘das Denken an etwas; Gelenken, Andenk
eit. sich eras merken’ and Gerhard Wahsig, Deitel Wirtbuch, rv,
(Gterfoh: Bertelsmann, 1975), sys for this word, FAhigkeit. Erlebtes aa merken,
Andenken, Erinnerung” When one says with the nuances and images that shine ut
from those words, Geddchinsis less "memory recollection, remembrance” and mote
align mind clint mid, aig in mind Enon thin Urea Gad os the =
vig of mind’ T have translated iain this text.
12 See evoril comment a the enc ofthis text,
Det16. Heidegger's Possibility
own to man can first ofall be inhabited, as that in which the intactness of
its uniqueness is preserved for the unique. In the habitation that
emerges from dwelling, what is the same conceals and shelters for itself
the originality that is own to it, in that it — again and again but always.
more originarily and more renewed ~is collected from out of the shelter
ing-coneealing so that it may rejoin itself to the sheltering in which the
origin lingers with itself.
‘The habitation that sways in dwelling, into which all steadfastness of
the originary is released, remains upheld by re-trieving in the face of the
ordinary and its rawness, The inabiding of this retrieving rests in mind.
In mind’s light the days of everydayness appear daily anew. Its thank
ing, thinking out into the most distant nearing, shines through the lit
darkness of the holy nights.
‘Thanking that keeps in mind receives the onetime greeting of the
unique. Because it is enowned to what is its awn in enowning, mind
what is originarily welcomed.
For this reason alone the thanking that keeps in mind can be a gr
ing. This greeting, enowned in mind ~ in the originarily welcomed ~
the essential origin of the necessity of love, Itis the welcomed greetings
to the unique. If mind were not there as the gathered place for the wel
comed greetings, then love would get trapped everywhere in the uncon-
cealed push of a hidden egotism of thankless people and would itself
frustrate the awakening of what is own to it.
‘Thanking that keeps in mind is joined to the one-time hint [dem ein-
stigen Wink] of the stillness of the unique.!” The hinting stillness of be
ing is the originary — yet unsaid and fully soundless ~ word. Thanking,
that keeps in mind embraces the hinting stiliness. It is what first ofall says,
the originary word
‘The first saying [Sage] is the sayingafter [Nach-sagen) that, in the
keeping in mind, follows the already enowned word." The keeping.in=
15. dem instgon Wink This ‘onetime,’ is a joining of what eintigsays, i. both what
‘once was (the former) and what is to came (the futie) ~ of a8 translated i the see
‘nd paragrapls, “what once was and il be ~ at dhe same time’ and a the same
14 Sage in several other texts Heidegger ditngiahes sng rm sehen. Schon mee
‘i apeak," whereas sagen wants to 9° ~in the rich setae of sying/shoning. This
Ficher sense of sagen shines through in sentences like Your hody language (nonverbal)
ys that you woul prefer something ee! or Tunderstanl your words, but what are
som soying?
‘yn to Humans (Mind in Enowning) 197
mind sayingafter says the saying into the full range of human ebwelling,
The saying-after is a furthersaying of the originary word that is heard.
‘The saying after and further-saying lays the word down in the word that,
assaying, encounters and gathers the originary word. Saying of mind, the
human word, is originarity and always only word-in-return [Antwort].!”
‘The saying-after and furthersaying of the originary word puts it into
the care of the sayings wordkin-return ~ and is thus dietary, diktiren, poi-
tic saying (Dichten].!° As thanking that keeps in mind, po‘-etie saying is.
originary thinking, In the originary thanking of mind, thinking and
poetic saying [dichten] are purely and simply the mirror-play of the says
ing, which in its ownhood is a sayingafier, and of musing [Sinnen}."”
But ‘musing’ means: to atiend to the bint of stillness, The musing saying
is poietic thinking [das dichtende Denken], in which the thanking thal
keeps in mind is enowned and comes singularly into its own [sich etnz
ereignet]
This enowning iswhat mind is
But man dwells in mind only when
ind, as word:in.
cturn, diverges
15 Antwort OF course, thn word unually micas “umever, replys
the context ofthe languaging of this piece ~as wells the languaging tha kes place
in he first piece presented here in dis appendix, Das Ween der Pali one nee
‘whear the word wexdin Anteont Thus a more dynamic reser
called foe
16 Diehl At imen leidesger tes this word to name what we normally ican by poty
Atother times he dstnguises Dichnong/ poetry and DenkenAinking ad hs bot
these eld within the ‘same” originary Didtung/potetie saying, Note that this happens
inthe earlier ext, Bas Wesen dey Phisoph gg listings the
Ing’ of Pa (poeta) and the thinking’ of plilesophy There he reverves he Wor Dich
tung the originary poteti siyng that i the dynamic relationship of bath and hat
bears up bouh the singing of poety and the “thinking of philesphy So there I could
translate Dichungas poetic saying,’ to distinguish i fo or poety,
named there Parsi Inthe present text Heidegger does not make this distinction #0
‘larly. and, as interprettsheunesthe German word dicen in both the above senses
asthe singing of poetey (or poetic saying) an! a the org ng that enriches and
sawsains both poetryand philosophy (or po-ti saying). Given all tha, here Twill
translate the German dick sometimes as poetic saying (meaning poetry) an same
timesas poietic saying (meaning he originary saying that gathers dss
poetyand philosophy). In each cane Twill put die German word dito in b
17 Sinnen In its normal usage this word mean meditate, tno,
‘or muse, The Middle English word mayen sp
‘on es lack of baggage in philosoplical usage makes ita useful wordt sty
hess af Heidegger's word sien ere,
sponse’ However, within158. Heidegger's Possibility
and parts -into the rejoining [Entgegnen] that itself responds within what is own to man.
As enowned mind, the uniqueness of the unique is refracted into the
mutuality of the welcomed-greeting ones. They bring to each other the
greeting of the favour, so that together it can free the unsaid word of the
favour into the thanking stillness, which must be enowned so that it can
be burst open. The breach of the thanking stillness is the dawn of the
sounding word of the saying, which is expressed in kany
sagt in die Sprache]. First the originary word must re
time unspoken in.the thanking stillness of the musing saying; only then
can what is first said in an unspoken manner be expressed in the lan
guage in which everydlay life meets with and conducts its conversations
For long before that time, human worcin-return, from man to man,
must ~ as itself already welcomed ~ first be grounded in mind. Human
word:in-return originarily takes place in the rejoining that joins and
embraces the breaking-through of the unique, the settinginto-motion
[das Ginnen] of the onectime into the enowning owning-up together.
This rejoining is owned-over to the ones who are welcomed and then
greet. They celebrate ~ mindfuly, silently, saying, calling ~ the festival of
the setting-into-motion. They celebrate the beginning.
The ones who greet one another in the word-in-return at the begin-
ning are both (the welcoming being and the greeting human, the wel
come of being and the human greeting], from within whose mutual
countering [Vergegnung] the stillness emerges into the intimated word
of the saying that saysafter.
In the beginning mind celebrates the festival of the uniqueness
of cnowning, In the celebration there lights up the thanking for recciv-
ing the fiery darkness, whose sheltered/concealed light shelters dhe
secret. This preserves the riddle, (namely) dhat dhe [unutual] owningeup
together of being and of man emerges from the rift of wuth [Wahr-
heit] and of man in his ownness
‘Thus, what is unsurmisably hidden and sheltered in the [mutual] own-
ing-up remains hidden in the secret—namely, that the favour of enown-
1g has been granted to the ache, so that its rift enjoins enown
18 Entegnee This German word says the separaag of ‘countering’ or an against (in
the ent), aswell asthe coming together of an “encountering” ora ‘reply in return’ in
the -eqnen). Both of these nuances of the German enfggen rewound in the English
ining
(Own to Humans (Mind in Enowning) 159
The rift of the ache disrupts — in a one-time way, before all else —be-
ing and man in his own, into their extreme ownn that,
instead of ripping the bond apart, what is disrupted in the rift is rather
entrusted to the simple intimacy of the preserving favour, in continuing
thanking,
‘This inner-concealing sheltering which is what the secret that sways
in enowning sis the quiet of being, which lights up the preserved.
movement of coming-forth and of going-under and delivers it over to
mind.
What is man? We, the both, are man, W.
with an inner ache we are the celebrat
perses the stillness in keepingin-mis
for saying,
Welkadvised by the word, the saying of mind, as it were, never solves
e riddle of the secret,
And yet thanking knows what is advisable for man’s dwelling in mind.
‘This [mind] thinks the secret and imtimates therein the dawning of
homeland,
All uth of keeping.in-mind is sheltered in homeland, The thanking
that keeps-in-mind thinks: be-ing is mind,
we the mind in enowning,
1 of the beginning, whieh dis-
and thus prepares the unspoken
Editorial Comment
‘The manuscript Das Wesen des Mensclien (Das Gediichinis im Eveignis) is
published here for the first time, as the Jahreygabe [of the Martin-
Heidegger-Gesellschaft] for 1993. The manuscript has no date, but it
probably stems from the beginning of the 1940s.
Vom Wesen der Spracheis at this time”? an unpublished manuscript.
19 Added atthe end ofthe manuscript by Hermann Heidegger:
20 Hermann Flekdegger wrote tis in 1998.11 is possible and even likely shat the reference
{310 GAS, Vim Wen der Sprache (published in 1990), whieh reproduces Heidegger's
notes for a seminar he gave in the summer semester of 198,