Within Enframing, we are for Heidegger faced with two choices; one to push forward nothing but what is revealed in ordering, and the other to realize that we too are on our way to arrival, and that, as a result, we need to re-orient ourselves to the world and our existence, thereby re-introducing chance. Under the first option we too become standing reserve (‘human resources’) and partake in a narcissism at the species level, becoming blind to the ways in which the world reveals itself; in this case, humans no longer experience their essence, which goes beyond the human: Being. In the second option, humans are needed for the surmounting of Enframing, and yet they correspond to that surmounting, in that a surmounting of Enframing is a surmounting of (liberal individual) self. Human essence must open to the essence of technology, which is also Being. Instead of `turning’ into oblivion, Being may thereby turn `homeward’ into whatever is; challenging-forth may be transformed into a more harmonious bringing-forth. This is, of course, a graciously selective reading of Heidegger, and one should hold reservations over his implicit Earthy anti-technological bias and his privileging of the German language, and the way these arguably converge in his Nazism. What I want to draw out here is that this surmounting, and this corresponding to this surmounting, is, when viewed through the present discussion, testimony itself. One surmounts the liberal self at the same time as one testifies; one surmounts in this testimony.

To find a way to `mourn the impossibility of mourning’, to exappropriate, one should begin an accounting of previous imaginings of the human-technological relation, centering around the figure of the cyborg.

¶ 2:55 PM