Let’s have a mind and raise flowers.

Dasein’s there, being always necessarily corporeal, exists with the ontical accidents including sex and its ancillary gendered inscriptions. The sheltering of truth in Dasein houses histories that precede us. Just as there is no presuppositionless thought, there is no body absolved of a history larger than itself; “a body resonates a world and history that are not only of that body.”[1] In each body there lay histories traced in the lines, scars, movements and resistances making every retrieval of the ‘having-been’ necessarily concern bodies. Historie and Geschichte deal not with concepts but the body’s meaning and possibility. In Heideggerian resoluteness, Dasein comes back and hands down factical possibilities and hands down in terms of a heritage possibilities at once inherited and chosen. The possibilities handed down, enigmatically; to oneself in resoluteness is done so with Dasein’s death and bodily finitude in sight. The there-being of history and future is located in bodies, and bodies’ temporality within the ecstatico-temporal horizon is such that the past, present, and future are located in the flesh. Bodies’ forms, dictated by radical fluidity, plasticity, and interpretation are inroads towards futures alleviated from patriarchal and colonizing systems of history.

Heidegger states that the interpretative structure of the hermeneutical circle excludes historiological efforts “a priori from the domain of rigorous knowledge.”[2] He writes of the historian, in this case implicitly operating from a patriarchal framework in search of objective truth value to a singular monolithic historical narrative, “it would admittedly be more ideal if the [hermeneutic] circle could be avoided and if there remained the hope of creating some time a historiology which would be as independent of the observer as our knowledge of Nature is supposed to be.”[3] Rather than a removed independent Subject, there exists a shared dependency where Dasein creates its context and vice versa. This occurs through the hermeneutical situation of Dasein having already a fore-having (Vorhabe), fore-sight (Vorsicht), and fore-conception (Vorgriff). The asking of a question in of itself determines context and furthermore; Dasein’s existential being defines itself in its activities and conversely creates the world it acts in.                Meaning in Heideggerian terms, takes its structure from the ‘fore-having-sight-conception’ triad and is an existentiale belonging only to Dasein. The corporeal considerations of feminisms face new questions of bodies through advancements of technologies giving new meaning to Dasein, the ground of which is an Abgrund, or abyss, giving the sense [Sinn] of Dasein an inexhaustible field of truth, and possibility. The conclusion drawn here is that equipmental structure, the artifacts that exist with Dasein and are currently becoming better integrated into cognitive, physical, sexual use are influential in the forms of questioning undertaken by feminists. As deconstructive efforts from feminists and elsewhere have brought new histories and futures, this process has necessarily been involved with technoscientific developments. Mariana Ortega writes that although we are socio-cultural beings, dependent upon the traditions, histories, and norms of our shared-world, “we are capable of re-interpreting our existences as well as these norms and practices.”[4] Furthermore, the re-interpretation of histories is centered in temporal bodies and as issues of corporeality further discourse opposing patriarchal and colonizing systems, technologies’ integrations into bodies benefit and strengthen this. Alongside of the questions that technology raises for the sexed and gendered body, body technologies are illustrative of Dasein’s re-tracing inscriptive scars of the past. So too do they damage histories and traditions reliant on categories as the interpretative platform of bodies prove to be as malleable and pliant as the histories they re-own in an authentic heritage.