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 Hi152 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 Heldeyger154 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, Det16. 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, within158. 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,