Heidegger searches deeply into this problem, questioning even the essence of essence. When talking about essence (Wesen), he maintains that: "The noun is derived from the verb wesen and is the same as to last or endure (wahren)."1 With the prefix an, anwesen means "to come to presence." In short, for Heidegger essence means enduring or being present. Thus, he could say, to question the essence of technology is to question how technology as a phenomenon is enduring and present. In his The Question Concerning Technology, sometimes, Heidegger uses the word an-wesen to denote essence.2 As originally, there was no hyphen between the prefix an (to, at, toward) and the root wesen, by it using the hyphen he intends to emphasize the meaning of "coming to presence".

Heidegger had developed this way of thinking much earlier in Being and Time where he points out that even in ontology which has universal beings or categories as its objects one should raise first of all the question of the meaning of Being. This is the so-called "ontological priority of the question of Being".3 There Heidegger brought out the primordial meaning of Being, which long had been forgotten. To deal with beings on this ground is to uncover the various ways in which the beings reveal Being. Hence, Heidegger’s discussion of the essence of technology is a concrete use of "the ontological priority of the question of Being". Here the particular being is technology and to work out the essence of technology is to uncover the way in which technology reveals being.

Heidegger finds a support for his point of view from the origin of Greek culture. He writes that the Greek term for technology is techné, "the term not only for the activities and skills of the craftsman, but also for the fine arts. Techné is a matter of bringing-forth, poiesis; it is something poietic."4 "From earliest times until Plato, the word techné was linked with the term epistéme: both being names for knowing in the broadest sense: to be entirely at home in something, to understand and be expert in it. Such knowing provides an opening, and as such is a revealing."5 "Thus what is decisive in techné does not lie at all in making and manipulating, nor in using of means, but rather in the aforementioned revealing. As revealing, not as manufacturing, techné is a bringing-forth."6

First, "The revealing that rules in modern technology is a challenging (Herausfordern)".7 Herausfordern is formed by a verb root fordern (which means to summon, to demand, to challenge) and two adverbial prefixes: her-(hither) and aus-(out). No single element can be omitted if we are to grasp the full meaning. Thus, according to Heidegger, as a mode of revealing, challenging means "to come forth by challenge or demand"; this is a matter of putting to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy that can be extracted and stored.8 This contrasts sharply with that of nature whose revealing is physis. "Physis is also the arising of something from itself, a bringing-forth or poiesis,"9 as with the blossoming or fading of a flower according to the season. But in contrast, if a flower is cultivated and preserved in a greenhouse articifially, this is an excessive demand upon nature, hence, is revealing by challenge. The revealing of the ancient technology is basically within the realm of natural presenting, as for instance, the energy of the wind is revealed by an old windmill which is left entirely to the wind and does not unlock energy from the wind in order to store it. In modern technology, however, a tract of land is challenged to bring forth coal and ore, which in turn is to yield energy. Even agriculture today is a mechanized food industry; the field has come under another kind of ordering.

Second, Heidegger points out, this challenging that brings forth the energy of nature is an expediting.10 That is, what is revealed is directed towards something else, i.e., toward the maximum yield at the minimum expense. For instance, digging coal is not only for uncovering it but for using the energy, which is challenged to turn the wheels that keep a factory running. This determines the basic characteristic of the things revealed in modern technology: "Everywhere everything is ordered to stand by, to be immediately at hand, indeed to stand there just so that it may be on call for a further ordering. Whatever is ordered about in this way has its own standing, namely standing in reserve (Bestand)."11

For example, to build a hydropower station on the Rhine River is much different than building a wooden bridge there. In the former case, the Rhine River is put into the interlocking process of modern technology as a waterpower resource. The difference is obvious if compared with the poem of Holdering entitled "The Rhine River". The Rhine River as natural landscape may be unchangeable, but in what sense is it now a landscape when it is on call for inspection by a tour group sent there by the vacation industry? Heidegger concludes: "Whatever stands by in the sense of standing in reserve no longer stands over against us as object;"12 "the object disappears into the objectlessness of standing in reserve."13

On the one hand, everything in the context of the interlocking of modern technology comes forth as standing in reserve. On the other hand, modern technology is a process in which everything is ordered, set into the interlocking context as a key link. Just as from the unfolding of the mountains we can see a mountain range or chain (gebirg) and from a person’s feeling, style etc., his disposition (gemut), so from the context of interlocking shown by standing-reserve we can see its direction or trend, called by Heidegger "Enframing" (ge-stell). Enframing describes the mode of revealing which challenges, orders and determines the standing in reserve: "The essence of modern technology lies in Enframing."14 To understand this seemingly strange statement, we should recall that by "the essence of technology", he is concerned not with "what modern technology is," but with a process or phenomenon.

What is the situation of man in the age of modern technology. Generally speaking, the theory of alienation discloses a situation in which man betrays his own essence. Hegel takes man as a link in the absolute spirit so that the alienation of the man is the alienation of self consciousness.15 As Marxism grasps the essence of human being in the light of its social relationship, the alienation of man lies in productive activity giving birth to the theory of alienated labor.16 As man’s essence lies in its to be, in Being and Time alienation is seen as forgetting one’s own Being. Later when he philosophizes on the problem of technology, he maintains that man’s standing in reserve is the essence of modern technology. This theory of alienation might be called alienated technology, though he never mentions the word alienation here.

Being and Time see man as distinctive in that the human understands its own Being. This makes man a Dasein in which both man and the entities encountered in the world are revealed. As man’s distinctive Being is called existence, man’s essence "lies in his existence."18

This means that man is essentially his own possibility or ability to exist. Without such ability, one would no longer be human. Its loss means death: "Death, as possibility, leaves Dasein nothing to be `actualized’."19 Hence alienation is not the thorough loss of possibility in death, but the phenomenon or existential reality called facticity.

Heidegger sees man as being for the most part in his inauthenticity, not only because he already is his facticity in the world, but also because for the most part he would choose his way "to be" not according to his own possibilities, but as merely following others. As each one lives in the world together with the others, in choosing one’s way one cannot but care about others or the mode of Being-with. Fearing being isolated, one chooses a way of existence like that of the others; the popular way of existence is a strong temptation in which each one would tranquilize himself. In this way the human becomes "They", but in so acting loses his or her own possibility to be. This is a universal phenomenon in daily life and one can hardly transcend this existentiality even when one thinks one is pursuing a character or personality of one’s own. Such unauthentic existentiality conceals Dasein’s possibility or essence. "When Dasein is tranquillized and `understands’ everything, it compares itself with everything, and drifts towards alienation (Entfremdung) in which its own most proper potentiality-for-Being is hidden. Falling into Being-in-the-world is not only tempting and tranquilizing, but at the same time alienating."20

In these terms in the age of modern technology man obviously is in the situation of alienation for he does not decide the goal of modern technology. Superficially, man conceives, designs and expedites the development of modern technology, but more basically the essence of modern technology lies in a mode of revealing as Enframing; modern technology develops according to its own ordering or challenging. As Heidegger writes: "Man can indeed conceive, fashion, and carry through this or that in one way or another. But man does not control the unconcealment itself in which at any given time the real shows itself or withdraws."21 As we will see later this "unconcealment" is destiny.

More importantly one not only can one not control the way of revealing, but is oneself the standing in reserve in the context of interlocking modern technology. It seems that the human begins the process of technology, but actually he is challenged or ordered to exploit the energies of nature from the very beginning. "If man is challenged, ordered to do this, then does not man himself belong even more originally than nature to the standing in reserve?"22 Heidegger points out that the current talk about human resources or the supply of patients for a clinic is evidence of this. Another example is that while the forester who measures a field of timber to all appearances walks the same forest path in the same way as did his grandfather, today he is driven by the profit-making of the lumber industry. He is subordinated to the necessity for cellulose, which in turn is challenged by the need for paper to be delivered to newspapers and magazines. The latter set public opinion, so that a set configuration of opinion becomes available on demand.23 This case shows how today even people in a traditional way of life are put into the context of modern technology, not to mention people now entering new professions of modern technology.

Of course, there is some difference between man and other entities in this interlocking context. Man is standing in reserve, but not sheerly so, for man is the first to be challenged in the ordering of technology and indeed is also "a way of revealing". But again, "The unconcealment itself within which the order unfolds is never a human handwork."24

Given that the essence of modern technology lies in Enframing or revealing as challenging and ordering, till now we have not asked what it is that is revealing. In fact, it is Being or destiny, but he never indicates that these are a subject; rather they are presented as the process of revealing as such. "As a challenging-forth into ordering, Enframing is a way of revealing. Like every way of revealing it is an ordaining of destiny. Bringing-forth, poiesis, is also a destiny in this sense."25

Further, since the essence of modern technology is from destiny, Heidegger sees not first of all alienated man, but a danger within the destiny itself. Man’s situation can be uncovered only by working out the above danger. Unfortunately, destiny, like revealing as such, is not something revealed, but conceals itself even while unconcealing. We cannot describe destiny as easily as we describe something revealed, for it is rather mystical. However, destiny reveals itself in various ways, as does Being. When the essence of modern technology holds sway, it blocks other ways of revealing as challenging to ordering; it even conceals technology as a way of revealing, because here everything seems to be revealed not by some mystic power, but in being challenged-forth by a certain order. Thus, "Where Enframing holds sway, the regulating and securing of standing in reserve marks all. They no longer even allow their own fundamental characteristic of revealing to appear." "Thus the challenging Enframing conceals not only a former way of revealing or bringing-forth, but it conceals itself and with it that wherein unconcealment, e.g., truth, comes to pass."26 One might question this as we are getting more and more knowledge by means of technology, but Heidegger distinguishes correct from true, maintaining that in technology "nature presents itself as a calculable complex of the effects of forces" which "can indeed permit correct determinations", but "in the midst of all that is correct the true will withdraw."27

Based on the above consideration, Heidegger concludes "The destiny of revealing is in itself not just any danger, but danger as such."28 "Thus, where Enframing reigns, there is danger in the highest sense."29

Since technology has a relation with destiny, we must consider the situation of man in the age of technology. First of all, regarding the relationship between man and destiny Heidegger says that "Man is rather `thrown’ from Being itself into the truth of Being, so that existing in this fashion he might guard the truth of Being, in order that beings might appear in the light of Being as the beings they are. . . . Man is the shepherd of Being."30 Further, he maintains that "Man becomes truly free only insofar as he belongs to the realm of destiny and so becomes one who listens and hears (Horender), and not one who is simply constrained to obey."31 Freedom means openness in which the unconcealing happens; when man listens and hears in the realm of destiny, he is in openness.

Because Enframing, which is the essence of modern technology, lies in destiny, everything seems to be all right for man in the age of modern technology, for there man is in destiny. However, as challenging and ordering, Enframing blocks the other possible ways of revealing, especially when it holds sway; otherwise, as the guard of destiny, "man might be admitted more, sooner and ever more primally to the essence of that which is unconcealed and to its unconcealment, in order to experience as his essence his need of belonging to revealing."32 Furthermore, when Enframing reigns, it blocks revealing as such, and hence does serious harm to man’s freedom.

In the light of the relationship between man and destiny, Heidegger points out another phenomenon which is also a danger to man, namely, that it is of the essence of modern technology that man seems to become the lord of the earth because here the revealing as such is blocked. As a result, man no longer holds that destiny is the source of the beings being unconcealed, but on the contrary the impression prevails that everything man encounters exists only as his own construct. This leads to a final delusion: "It seems as though man everywhere and always encounters only himself."33 This is taken as a disadvantage by Heidegger for the true "advent of beings lies in the destiny of Being."34

If a disadvantage is caused by man’s fault, such as alienation, it could be corrected or remedied by man’s own effort. But when a danger comes from destiny it could not be avoided merely by man. What man could do is not to give up technology, but to "keep watch over the unconcealment -- and with it, from the first, the concealment -- of all coming to presence in the earth."35 That is to say, man should take technology not only as an instrument at hand, but as a way of revealing. It is a way for human beings to recover their own dignity: man is the shepherd of the destiny of Being.

Fortunately, as far as I can see, it is easier to understand Heidegger’s thinking on destiny in relation with the traditional Chinese philosophy. If compared to Tao in Chinese philosophy,36 although Tao is not known by seeing or touching, nor can it even be named, most Chinese philosophers have thought Tao to be both nature and human society. They maintain that one can experience the Tao through everything and every event, despite differing in details as to which is the correct way to reach the Tao. We can read from Yi Jing: "That which goes ascending is what is called Tao. That which goes descending is what is called a `vessel’"37 Thus, as Chinese philosophers understand, Tao is in the metaphysical realm; Tao is the supreme aim of doing philosophy.

That does not mean that one should do nothing but philosophy, but since Tao pervades the world one can reach or experience the Tao through action in the world. The man who has reached or experienced Tao is called a saint or a sage. Throughout the long history, Chinese intellectuals looked down upon technology, so the word technique should replace technology. But they did not deny that doing technique is also a way to experience the Tao. So, they maintain, "Go through technique to the Tao".38 This has the same meaning as Heidegger’s saying "To keep watch over the destiny of Being" in the essence of modern technology.