negative sense but rather the organ belongs positively to the capacity. We say that the capacity takes the organ into its service. To put it more clearly with specific reference to our guiding question: In the case of the organ, the character of the 'in order to'-which we can also observe in any kind of equipment, instrument, or machine-is fundamentally different from that of equipment. The eye is not serviceable for seeing in the way in which the pen is serviceable for writing. Rather the organ stands in service of the capacity that develops it. The finished product that has been made ready is, as such, serviceable for ..., whereas the organ which arises in and through the capacity is subservient. Serviceability [Dienlichkeit] and subservience [Diensthaftigkeit] are not the same. The organ always belongs to the capacity which develops it in subservience to that capacity. It can never simply be serviceable for the capacity. If, therefore, the character of the 'in order to' which marks out the organ means standing in service of the capacity, then the capacity as such must first make possible this subservience. The capacity must itself possess an originarily subservient character. It is only now that we are beginning to approach the character of possibility pertaining to capacity as distinct from readiness.
To say that a finished product is ready not only means that it is [1.] completed, and [2.] serviceable for ..., but also means that it is [3.] incapable of getting any further in its specific being as such (equipmental being). It is now completed, that is, it is and remains something that can be called upon and used precisely as something produced and only as such. In its equipmental being it indeed enables and prescribes a particular application in each case. But with regard to this application, and how it takes place or whether it takes place or not, the equipment not only has no part to play, but equipmental being shows no intrinsic urge toward such application. The equipment is simply serviceable and with that its being is complete. If it is to serve in the specific manner of its possible serviceability, a further act quite different from that of production must first come into play and thereby wrest from the equipment its possible service in the first place. The hammer is certainly ready for hammering, but the being of the hammer is not an urge toward hammering. As a finished product the hammer lies outside the possible act of hammering. By contrast something like the eye, for example, which belongs to a capacity and subserves the capacity of seeing, can do so only because the capacity is itself intrinsically subservient and as such can take something into service. The capacity itself governs and delimits the emergence of what it takes into service and the manner in which it does so. The finished product is serviceable. That which is capable in its capability as such is subservient. Capacity diverts itself into its own wherefore and does so in advance with respect to itself. The being of the finished product, readiness, knows nothing of this kind. The hammer in its specific being a hammer can never as it were divert itself into hammering