Thinking back to a published conversation between Parvis Emad and the author on “Questions Concerning the Interlingual Translation of Heidegger’s Keywords”, the essay elaborates on the way-character of translation, and on the weight of words, in the context of Heidegger’s thought. While the text centers on a reading of the word Ereignis in English, in conclusion it calls for abandoning the apparent “sheer impossibility” of translating Geschichte and Historie with two different English words.

In this essay, I will outline the adjustments in Heidegger’s account of technicity that are necessary to address the danger ( Gefahr ) that revolves around recent advances, including cybernetics. These adjustments that Parvis Emad was among the first to pioneer, are hermeneutic guidelines that delineate the wholesale appearance of beings through the prism of a “mathematical project”. The mathematical project of ‘nature’ creates a platform on which cybernetics can arise in two ways: 1). by converting the linear sequencing of (...) ‘time’ (as “making present”) into a universal form of calculation and 2). by subdividing ‘space’ into infinite points. The danger, then, does not lie in the ominous effects of technicity, but as a throwback to the metaphysical distortion of the reciprocity between being and time in which the former is confined to the presencing of beings through a model of calculability and the latter is reduced to the “digitizing” of a linear sequence of units. The hermeneutic guidelines allow for the “retrograsping” ( zürckgenommen [Emad’s translation] of the danger of technicity (including its transmutation into cybernetics) as a “throwback” to the abandonment of and by being ( Seinsverlassenheit ). (shrink)