in-being

The determination of Dasein   as being-in-the-world is a unified and original one. Three elements can be brought out in this basic constitutive state and traced more closely back to its phenomenal composition: 1) being-in-the-world in the particular sense of the world, ‘world’ as the how of the being—ontologically, the worldhood of the world; 2) the entity as it is determined from the ‘who’ of this being-in-the-world and from the how of this being, how the entity itself is in its being; 3) IN-BEING as such. GA20EN   §19

Though this basic constitution becomes the theme of the analysis according to three aspects, it is still always wholly there as itself in each particular consideration. What the aspects bring out in each case are not   pieces, detachable moments out of which the whole may first be assembled. Bringing out the individual structural moments is a purely thematic accentuation and as such always only an actual apprehension of the whole structure in itself. In order to indicate at the outset that this highlighting is a thematic accentuation, that in regarding the first, the in-the-world, we also always already co-intend the second and the third, we shall anticipate the comprehensive analysis of the first phenomenon, in-the-world, by an account orienting us to the last   phenomenal constituent to be mentioned, IN-BEING as such. GA20EN §19

We begin by asking what IN-BEING means. What is seen and intended by it in the being of Dasein itself? At first, we complete IN-BEING [In-Sein  ] by adding ‘in-the-world’ and are inclined to understand this IN-BEING as ‘being-in . . .’ [Sein-in  ]. In this latter formulation, it designates the kind of being of an entity which is ‘in’ another, the relationship of being of something ‘in’ something. When we then try to give intuitive demonstration to this ‘in,’ more accurately to the ‘something-in-something,’ we give examples like the water ‘in’ the glass, the clothes ‘in’ the closet, the desks ‘in’ the classroom. By this we mean that one is spatially contained in another and refer to the relationship of being with regard to place and space of two entities which are themselves extended in space. Thus both the first (water) and the second (glass), wherein the first is, are ‘in’ space; both have their place. Both are only ‘in’ space and have no IN-BEING. GA20EN §19

But ‘IN-BEING’ as a structure of the being of Dasein, of the entity which I am in each instance, does not refer to this being-in-one-another, ‘being-in’ as a spatial containment of entities which takes place in the form of an occurrence. It does not refer to a corporeal thing called ‘human body’ being on hand   in a spatial container (room, building) called ‘world.’ This cannot be the intention   from the start, if we keep to what the fundamental character of Dasein itself implies. Dasein is not to be taken as an entity with a view to its outward appearance, as it looks to others in one or another state. Instead, it is to be taken only in its way to be. ‘IN-BEING’ does not refer to such a spatial in-one-another any more than ‘in’ originally means just that kind of spatial relation. GA20EN §19

This same entity which we characterize as IN-BEING we also define, as I have already said, as the entity that I am [bin]; and ‘bin’ is connected with ‘bei  .’ ‘I am’ thus amounts to saying, I dwell, I abide in the world as with something familiar. Being as IN-BEING and ‘I am’ means dwelling with . . . , and ‘in’ primarily does not signify anything spatial at all but means primarily being familiar with. Why and how it, along with this primary sense, also has a genuine sense of place, which however is still essentially distinct from the spatial being-in-one-another of the things mentioned earlier, shall be examined later. But it should already be stated that the local sense of place, which this correctly understood IN-BEING can also have, that I as an entity in the world am always somewhere, has nothing to do with the spatial in-one-another we first named; even my local experience of standing here in this place, insofar as it characterizes being as being-in-the-world, is essentially distinct from the being on hand of the chair in this space. This IN-BEING, which we now should never understand in a primarily local and spatial sense, is rather, as being-involved-with, defined by temporal   particularity, it is in each instance mine and each instance this. GA20EN §19

Such possible modes of IN-BEING belonging to everydayness include: working on something with something, producing something, cultivating and caring for something, putting something to use, employing something for something, holding something in trust, giving up, letting something get lost, interrogating, discussing, accomplishing, exploring, considering, determining something. In a way still to be clarified, these modes of IN-BEING have the character of concern, in the sense of taking something into one’s care, having it in one’s care. Even the pertinent modifications of not being concerned, neglecting, relaxing, refraining belong in principle to the same kind of being. Even when I do nothing and merely doze and so tarry in the world, I have this specific being of concerned being-in-the-world—it includes every lingering with and letting oneself be affected. GA20EN §19

The declaration of the genuine meaning of IN-BEING does not also already guarantee seeing the phenomenon which it expresses. But at the same time it is also more than a mere verbal definition  ; it fixes our line of sight above all prohibitively, it indicates where we do not have to look. But from our account of the fundamental character we already know that, to demonstrate all the determinations of being under discussion, we should look to the entity which in each instance we are, to the extent that and as we are it. Dasein, insofar as it is at all, is in the way of being of IN-BEING. This means that IN-BEING in the sense already defined is not a ‘property’ of the entity called Dasein, not a property which it has or does not have, which devolves upon it or which it might add to itself, without which it could be just as well as with it, so that at first one could conceive the being of Dasein otherwise, to some extent without IN-BEING. IN-BEING is rather the constitution of the being of Dasein, in which every way of being of this entity is grounded. IN-BEING is not merely something thrown into the bargain for an entity which even without this constitutive state would be Dasein, as if the world, in which every Dasein as Dasein always already is, were at times first added to this entity (or conversely this entity to it) so that this entity then could at its leisure enter into a ‘relation’ with the world. Such entering into relations with the world is altogether possible only insofar as Dasein already is being-in-the-world on the basis of its being-involved-with. . . . GA20EN §19

This characteristic phenomenon of IN-BEING and its characteristic of defining Dasein in its very being must be made perfectly clear from the outset and kept in view as an apriori   of every particular relationship to the world. I shall therefore try to make this clear in a roundabout way, inasmuch as this structure of IN-BEING was in a certain way always already seen wherever Dasein was examined. It would even be incomprehensible if such a basic phenomenon of Dasein had been totally overlooked. It is another question whether it is experienced and apprehended so that its authentic structure shows itself and thereby presents the possibility of determining the being of the entity so structured in a phenomenally suitable way. GA20EN §19

When we reproduce the phenomenal findings in this form: Knowing is a mode of being of IN-BEING, someone oriented to the traditional horizon   of epistemological questions is inclined to reply that such an interpretation   of knowing actually nullifies the problem of knowledge. But what authority decides whether and in what sense there is supposed to be a problem of knowledge, outside of the subject matter itself? When we ask about the mode of being of knowing itself, then it must be kept in mind from the outset that every act of knowing always already takes place on the basis of the mode of being of Dasein which we call IN-BEING, that is, being-always-already-involved-with-a-world. Knowing is now not a comportment that would be added to an entity which does not yet ‘have’ a world, which is free from any relation to its world. Rather, knowing is always a mode of being of Dasein on the basis of its already being involved with the world. GA20EN §20

The basic defect of epistemology is just that it fails to regard what it means by knowing in its original phenomenal datum as a way of being of Dasein, as a way of its IN-BEING, and to take from this basic consideration all the questions which now begin to arise on this ground. GA20EN §20

The contention that there is no longer a problem of knowledge, if it is maintained from the outset that Dasein is involved with its world, is really not a contention but only the restoration of a datum which any unbiased seeing sees as obvious. Moreover, it is nowhere prescribed that there must be a problem of knowledge. Perhaps it is precisely the task of a philosophical investigation ultimately to deprive many problems of their sham existence, to reduce the number of problems and to promote investigation which opens the way to the matters themselves. Not only does a correct interpretation of knowing as a mode of IN-BEING not deny a problematic of knowledge; it actually first makes such a problematic possible, especially when knowing, as its sense of being requires, is understood as a mode of IN-BEING, of being-in-the-world, but not as a basic kind of being-in-the-world. Then comes the question which actually can be explored: How does the Dasein, which at any given time is in a particular but primarily non-cognitive and not merely cognitive mode of being, disclose its world in which it already is? Correlatively, which modes of concealment are essentially co-given as temporally particular ways for Dasein to be in its world? What is the temporally particular scope of discoverability corresponding to a particular mode of being of Dasein in its world? What are the apriori conditions of being for this Dasein (IN-BEING) itself and accordingly for the original, all-surpassing, transcendental  -ontological, that is, ontological-existential understanding of being as such and the ontological possibilities of being toward the world? What is meant by truth in each case for the knowing of entities of the most diverse types? What is the sense and the justification and the kind of binding force, a force which a kind of truth and level of truth has at any given time? What is the demonstrability and conceptuality belonging to such truth? The basic problem is precisely to see this fundamental structure and to define it in its genuine apriori in an ontologically suitable manner. The problem of knowledge is not disposed of by an arbitrary act but first becomes a problem when it is placed upon its possible ground. The problem and the pseudo  -problems must be brought to light. GA20EN §20

All of these genuine phenomena can be investigated and correctly understood from the outset only if it is made clear that knowing, according to its sense, is already a mode of the IN-BEING of Dasein; that knowing is not something by which Dasein, not yet in the world at first, upon knowing would produce a relation to the world. How should this initially worldless being of the subject even be understood? There can never be a problem, for example, on how the opposition of the two entities, subject and object, is possible. Knowing understood as apprehending has sense only on the basis of an already-being-involved-with. This already-being-involved-with, in which knowing as such can first ‘live,’ is not first ‘produced’ directly by a cognitive performance; Dasein, whether it ever knows it or not, is as Dasein already involved with a world. The priority which has always been granted to cognitive comportment from ancient times is at the same time associated with the peculiar tendency to define the being of the world in which Dasein is primarily in terms of how it shows itself for a cognitive comportment. In other words, the manner of being of the world was characterized by referring to its specific objectivity for world cognition. Regarded in this way, there is accordingly an inner connection between the manner of being defining the world and the basic characterization of Dasein itself with respect to its primary relation to the world as knowing. GA20EN §20

More accurately, knowing now shows—I can indicate this only very briefly here—a phased structure, a specific interconnection in which it is temporalized as a mode of being of Dasein. The first phase in the temporalization of knowing is the directing-itself-toward something, the specific comportment of taking up a direction toward something; but this already on the basis of IN-BEING in the world. The second phase is dwelling-with that toward which Dasein is now directing itself. This dwelling with an entity toward which it is directing itself is itself grounded in this directing-itself-toward. That is to say, the directing-itself-toward an object holds out to the end, and dwelling with an entity takes place within it. The directing-itself-toward is not put out of play at the phase of dwelling with an entity but persists throughout, anticipating all other modes of comportment and determining them. Here, directing-itself-toward means taking a view, conceiving as, the “from which” of viewing. GA20EN §20

Fifth, the preserving retention of what is known is itself nothing but a new mode of IN-BEING, that is, of the relationship of being to the entity which is known; the IN-BEING characterized under the first point is now modified by knowledge. GA20EN §20

The entire sequence of the phases of knowing, from the primary directing-itself-toward to the retaining, simply exhibits the cultivation of a new stance of the being of Dasein toward that which is known. It exhibits a possibility of being which was already also announced as science and research. Finally, this is a matter of modes of temporalization, such that the first mode anticipates all the others, sustaining itself in the others; and it is itself anticipatory only as IN-BEING. GA20EN §20

In directing-itself-toward and apprehending, Dasein does not first get out of itself, out of its inner sphere in which it is encapsulated. Rather, its very sense is to be always already ‘outside’ in the world, in the rightly understood sense of ‘outside’ as IN-BEING and dwelling with the world, which in each instance is already uncovered in some way. Dwelling with the matter to be known does not involve abandonment of the inner sphere, as if Dasein leaps out of its sphere and is no longer in it but still is found only at the object. Dasein in this ‘being outside’ with the object is also ‘inside,’ rightly understood; for it is as being-in-the-world that Dasein itself knows the entity. [And in turn,] the apprehending of what is known is not like returning from an expedition of plunder with its acquired booty back into the ‘housing’ of consciousness, of immanence; for in the very apprehending as well and in having, preserving, and retaining what is apprehended, the knowing Dasein remains ‘outside.’ In knowing about a context of being of the world, even in merely thinking of it, in merely representing it without originally experiencing it, I am no less with the entities outside in the world, and I am not in the least with myself on the inside. If I merely represent the Freiburg Cathedral to myself, this does not mean that it is only immanently present in the representing; rather, this mere representing is in the genuine and best sense precisely with the entities themselves. Even the forgetting of something, in which the relationship of being to what is known is apparently obliterated, is nothing but a particular modification of being-involved-with. Only on this basis is forgetting possible. All delusion and all error, in which in a way no relationship of being to the entity is secured but is instead falsified, are once again only modes of being-involved-with. GA20EN §20

In the entire edifice of knowing based on IN-BEING, it is not the case that with apprehension the subject would somehow first introduce, first produce, its relation of being to the world. Rather, apprehension is grounded in a prior letting-something-be-seen. Such a letting-something-be-seen is possible on the basis of a letting-something-be-encountered, and this is possible only on the basis of always already being-involved-with. Only an entity which in its being has the aptitude to let another entity (world) be encountered stands in the possibility of apprehending something, of knowledge. Knowing is nothing but a mode of being-in-the-world; specifically, it is not even a primary but a founded way of being-in-the-world, a way which is always possible only on the basis of a non-cognitive comportment. GA20EN §20

What we have set forth here as the IN-BEING of Dasein and characterized in greater detail is the ontological fundament   for what Augustine   and above all Pascal   already noted. They called that which actually knows not knowing but love and hate. All knowing is only an appropriation and a form of realization of something which is already discovered by other primary comportments. Knowing is rather more likely to cover up something which was originally uncovered in non-cognitive comportment. GA20EN §20

The IN-BEING of Dasein remains a puzzle for every attempt to explain it as an entity which it a priori is not. For every explanation conducts what is to be explained back to its contextures of being. This must always be guided by the prior question of whether the entity to be explained is experienced beforehand in its being and whether it is adequately specified in its being. The IN-BEING of Dasein is not to be explained but before all else has to be seen as an inherent kind of being and accepted as such; in short, it has to be deciphered ontologically. Hardly an arbitrary act, but just the opposite! Of course, this is easier said than done, especially in a truly expository analysis. GA20EN §20

We have oriented the question of IN-BEING in particular toward the relation of knowing because this mode of being of Dasein traditionally has priority in the philosophical determination of the relation of the ego   (the subject) to the world; and yet this mode of being is still not originally conceived but instead remains the source of all sorts of confusion as a result of this indeterminacy in regard to its being. The so-called epistemological positions of idealism and realism and their varieties and mixtures are all possible only on the basis of a lack of clarity of the phenomenon of IN-BEING, about which they formulate theories without having exposed it in advance. Idealism and realism both let the relationship of being between subject and object first emerge. Indeed, in idealism this leads to the assertion (in quite distinct ways, depending on whether it is logical or psychological idealism) that it is the subject which first of all creates the relation of being to the object. Realism, which goes along with the same absurdity, in contrary fashion says that it is the object which through causal relations first effects the relations of being to the subject. In opposition to these basically equivalent positions, there is a third position which presupposes the relationship of being between subject and object from the start, for example, that of Avenarius: between subject and object there is what is called a ‘principal coordination,’ and subject and object must from the start be regarded as standing in a relationship of being. But this relationship is in its mode of being left undefined, as is the mode of being implied in subject and object. A position which wants to stand   on this side of idealism and realism because it does not let the relationship first emerge, but which at the same time stands on the far side of idealism and realism because it tries to preserve and yet sublate both positions in their own rights, which they really do not have, is a position whose sense is always oriented to this theory. What has been said in our present consideration about knowing as a mode of being of IN-BEING and suggested as a task of a phenomenology of knowing stands neither on this side nor on the far side of idealism and realism, nor is it either one of the two positions. Instead it stands wholly outside of an orientation to them and their ways of formulating questions. GA20EN §20

Our further considerations will not only explicate the genuine sense of knowing more clearly. Above all, their aim is to show that knowing in its being is grounded upon more original structures of Dasein, that, for example, knowing can be true—can have truth as a distinctive predicate—only because truth is not so much a property of knowing but is rather a character of the being of Dasein itself. This may suffice as a provisional account of the phenomenon of IN-BEING. GA20EN §20

From what has been said about the being of Dasein as IN-BEING, namely, that this IN-BEING does not refer to anything like a spatial in-one-another, we can at least formally gather that world is the wherein of Dasein’s being. Accordingly, the ‘wherein’ does not refer to a spatial container. At any rate, such a spatial container cannot constitute the primary character of world, if world is indeed taken as the wherein of the IN-BEING indicated above. But spatiality or more accurately locality plays an especially distinctive constitutive role for the being of the world. In its ontic sense, ‘world’ is the entity which is obviously not the Dasein that is in it, but rather the entity with which [wobei] the Dasein has its being, the entity toward which the Dasein is. This being-toward, this being toward the world, has—as we have already suggested—the character of concern. We define this concern for the world, this being in it in various modes and possibilities, more precisely as preoccupation with it. In its preoccupation with the world the temporally particular being-in-the-world which the Dasein is temporalizes itself. GA20EN §21

When we designate the world as the wherein correlative to IN-BEING, it is so regarded now with a view to the mode of being of IN-BEING understood as preoccupation, in the with-which of concerned preoccupation. In thus being preoccupied with the world, Dasein always already finds its world, and this finding is not theoretical apprehension. The ‘already-being-involved-with’ is care in being concerned. As concerned preoccupation with the world Dasein lets itself encounter its world. Concern as the basic mode of Dasein permits encounter. In thus letting the world be encountered, Dasein discloses the world. All knowing, which as a mode of being of concern is built upon concern, merely lays out, interprets the disclosed world and happens on the basis of concern. Indeed, a particular correlation appears here. The more the initially experienced world is deprived of its worldhood (“unworlded,” as we shall later put it), that is, the more the initially experienced world becomes mere nature; the more we discover in it its mere naturality, for example, in terms of the objectivity of physics; the more cognitive comportment discovers in this way, then all the more does knowing itself become as such the proper way to disclose and to discover. It is in mathematics that knowing as such celebrates the triumph of the discoveries of entities. It is here that we in fact find knowing as such, which discovers, although even here not in a radical and definitive sense, rightly regarded. GA20EN §21

To determine the worldhood of world is to lay open in its structure the how of the encounter, drawn from that encounter, of the entity in which Dasein is as IN-BEING in accord with its basic constitution, in short to lay open the structure of the being of this entity. Phenomenological interpretation of the worldhood of the world does not mean a narrative description reporting on the outward appearance of things in the world, that there really are mountains, streams, houses, stairs, tables, and the like, and how all of this stands. We shall also never come to grasp the sense of the world if we could run through the sum-total of all the things in the world. In such an inventory and in every characterization of the outward appearance of a world-thing and of the particular relations among several of them we always think of the world-thing in advance already as a world-thing. But the issue is not really all that can be found in the world but rather the how of the being of such an entity and of every entity of this sort: the wherein as the possibility of being of the leeway of encounter of IN-BEING. It is a matter of a transcendental exposition of worldhood from the being of Dasein qua IN-BEING, not a narrative report of world-occurrences but an interpretation of worldhood, which characterizes everything that does occur as worldly. GA20EN §21

Even environing worldhood, the being of the entity with which the caring, concerned preoccupation of Dasein first dwells, should not be understood in a primarily spatial sense. The ‘around’ and the ‘round about’ are not to be taken primarily spatially, and not spatially at all if spatiality is defined in terms of the dimensionality of metric space, the space of geometry. On the other hand, however, the continual resistance to spatiality which we are forced to adopt in the determination of IN-BEING, in the characterization of world and still more in the account of the environing world, the constant necessity here to suspend a specific sense of spatiality, suggest that in all of these phenomena a certain sense of something like spatiality is still in play. This is in fact the case. For just this reason it is important from the start not to miss the question of the structure of this spatiality, that is, not to start from the spatiality which is specifically geometrical, a spatiality which is discovered in and extracted from the primary and original space of the world. Since it is a question of understanding the primary sense of world, a particular idea   of space understood in terms of metric space must first be put out of play. On the contrary, we shall learn to comprehend the sense of metric space and the particular modification which motivates metrics in spatiality by reference to a more original spatiality. But first and foremost, we must come to understand the sense of worldhood. The outline of our reflection on the structure of the worldhood of the world is therefore marked off in the following two points: 1. The worldhood of the environing world as such, the encountered ‘in order to’ [Umzu], the deployment; 2. The aroundness, the primary spatial character of the ‘around’ [Um] as a constitutive feature of worldhood. GA20EN §21

But handiness is the presence of an immediately available environmental thing such that preoccupation dwells precisely in the references of serviceability and the like as a concerned reaching for something, getting it ready for use. We can now expressly keep an eye on what is thus encountered, for example, in making an instrument present by looking after it and looking around to see whether in the end it should not be arranged differently in view of that for which it is an instrument. When we look at the tool in this way, the now handy environmental thing is thematic in its handiness. But this thematization still remains wholly and simply in the kind of sight which guides the genuinely concerned use of the thing, in circumspection. But at the same time this thematization of handiness is the transitional step to a potentially independent mode of concerned preoccupation—in the care of merely looking at . . . ; the handy entity placed under care is now merely viewed. For this to be possible, the environmental thing of utility must be concealed precisely in its specific referential relations as a utensil so that it may be encountered solely as a thing occurring in nature. This covering up or masking is performed by concern insofar as being-in-the-world is now modified to a state of solely looking, a mere looking which interprets. This modification of IN-BEING means, so to speak, the attempt on the part of Dasein not to be in its most immediate environment any longer. It is only when we absent ourselves from the environing world by stepping out of it, as it were, that we gain access to the presumably authentic reality of the primary thing of nature. The mode of encounter of the natural thing in the character of bodily presence, a characteristic obtrusiveness which things of the world show insofar as they are merely perceived, this character of bodily presence has its basis in a specific “unworlding” of the environing world, a deprivation of its worldhood. Nature as object of natural science is in general discovered only in such an “unworlding.” But the reality of the environing world is not a diminished bodily presence, a degraded nature. GA20EN §23

The term reference points formally to a structure which finds its expression in various phenomena. A sign is a kind of reference, and so is a symbol  , symptom, trace, document, testimony, expression, relic. These phenomena of reference cannot be pursued in detail here, not only because they require comprehensive analyses but because we still do not have the basis for such an analysis, if it is to maintain a unified orientation. We want to arrive at this basis precisely with the interpretation of world and Dasein’s IN-BEING. GA20EN §23

It was said that because world is present, that is, because it is disclosed and in some sense encountered for the Dasein which is in it, there is in general something like sign-things, they are handy. It belongs to the being of Dasein, inasmuch as it is being-in-the-world, to let its world be encountered. The kind of being belonging to letting the world be encountered in the primary mode of concern is itself one of understanding. The correlate of this understanding which guides all concern is that with which care dwells and which always shows itself in understanding, even though in an ever so indefinite familiarity. This primary state of knowing one’s way about belongs essentially to IN-BEING; it belongs to its sense of being and is not just something that is thrown into the bargain. But this implies that understanding primarily does not mean a mode of knowing at all, unless knowing itself has been seen as a constitutive state of being for being-in-the-world. But even then it must be said that the sense of understanding is not merged with having knowledge of something, but involves a being toward something, that is, the being of Dasein. IN-BEING as self-understanding in understanding its world discloses the understanding of its world. Formulated in another way, it is only because understanding is the primary being-relationship of Dasein to the world and to itself that there can be something like an independent understanding and an independent cultivation and appropriation of understanding as in historical knowledge and exegesis  . We shall now have to interpret the previous account of the structure of the world in correlation with the basic constitution of Dasein as the understanding concernful being-in-the-world. GA20EN §23

These relations invested in a source can be disengaged in their structure with conceptual rigor only against the background of the entity which understands and discovers in understanding. I cannot pursue these structures any further here; they only aim to demonstrate that being a sign, the being of a source, of testimony, and the like is grounded in this, that there is something like a world, a world whose mode of encounter and of being is meaningfulness; and that the access to what is indicated and going along with its indication is an environmental understanding, and this always also means an understanding of the IN-BEING in this world, which is grounded in the understanding of Dasein itself. GA20EN §23

The reality of the world is not a problem in the sense of whether it actually exists or not, but the question of the reality of the world persists in the question of how worldhood is to be understood. But even if it is said that the initial question of the existence of the world is naturally and obviously contrary to sense, which is often heard, this will not do phenomenologically. This countersense must be allowed to assault the phenomenon, so to speak, by way of the positive   vision of the phenomenon of IN-BEING and the world. In other words, the basic constitution of Dasein as being-in-the-world must be seen in order to be able to make the statement that it contravenes sense, it infringes the basic constitution of that of which we speak. The ‘self-evidence’ of the existence of the world must become transparent in a Dasein by way of the positive vision of the phenomenon of IN-BEING. Ontic-existentiell self-evidence is given with the being of Dasein, but ontologically it is puzzling. GA20EN §24

If the being of the world were definable only in terms of being apprehended, then the one chance of nevertheless still clarifying the ‘in-itself’ would be by an ever greater disregard of the subject. But how would that be possible without the basic constitutive state of IN-BEING? But since the being of the world becomes comprehensible in the encounter, the understanding of the entity in itself is as such revealed only in a radical interpretation of Dasein. The more originally and the more authentically this entity is explicated in its being, the more radically can knowing and entities as potentially knowable then be explicated. Because objects are independent of the subject, their being can be explicated only in subjectivity properly understood, but it cannot consist in being a subject. GA20EN §24

The explication of aroundness can be divided into three steps: [a], the highlighting of the phenomenal structure of aroundness as such; [b], aroundness, the environmental as a primary character of world and of spatiality, that is, as a primary character of the encounter of world and so of Dasein itself as IN-BEING; [c] the specific spatializing of the world, that is, the discovery and elaboration of pure space as an unworlding of the world. GA20EN §25

Nearness and distance as characters of the worldly likewise had the determination of the regional, of that which lies in a region. The region is the where of the whither of a belonging to, going to, bringing away, looking at, and the like. This ‘out-to’ is the directedness that belongs to all concern as being-in-the-world. This means that, since IN-BEING is always re-motive, every re-motion as a basic determination of being-in-the-world is a directedness-towards. The orientation can thereby be fixed and determined successively and variously. The very fixation of orientedness can in turn be possible by various means, purely environmentally through signs or purely mathematically through a graphical calculation. But the condition of possibility of this fixation is the determination of the region on the basis of meaningfulness. GA20EN §25

In walking on the street we touch and come in contact with the ground with every step, but we do not really live in what is touched and brought near in such touching. The ground that I walk on is not at all the ‘nearest.’ What is nearest is rather an acquaintance who is approaching me perhaps some twenty steps removed. It is thus clear that IN-BEING as bringing something near and making it remote is always defined by the presence of concern, of the primary being-intimately-involved-with-something. And insofar as this involvement stands in the closest connection with time and in a certain sense is time itself, the interpretation of remotion is determined on this basis. Such an interpretation is at first always distinct from the computation of intervals. Computation of intervals is always a modification of the interpretation of remotion, of IN-BEING. That making remote and being remote belong to Dasein as to its basic constitution of IN-BEING is moreover manifest in this, that I can never cross such a remotion in which I constantly live. I can surely cross the interval between the door and the chair but never the remotion in which I am at this place toward the door. This remotion, which I myself am as a ‘being-toward,’ can never be crossed by me. If I try to do so, something peculiar comes to light: I take the remotion with me; I take it with me because I am it. This is also related to a broader and certainly complicated constitutional consequence, that I can never jump over my own shadow, because with the jump the shadow jumps ahead of me. I can never wander about in this primary spatiality of the environing world in which I constantly am. For it is the spatiality which belongs to my very being-in-the-world, which I constantly take with me and, as it were, cut out from ‘objective world-space’ everywhere that I am, at every place. GA20EN §25

The possibility of indicating is grounded in the constitution of orientation. Indicating lets a ‘there’ be seen and experienced. This ‘there’ brings with it the discovery of the corresponding ‘here’ of indicating and of the indicator. The fact that environmental signs are encountered, understood, and used means that being-in-the-world, concerned preoccupation in the world, is as such oriented. It is because Dasein in its being is oriented IN-BEING that there is right and left. More accurately put, because oriented Dasein is corporeal Dasein, corporeality is necessarily oriented. The orientation of apprehension and looking articulates the ‘straight ahead’ and the ‘to the right and left.’ Dasein is oriented as corporeal, as corporeal it is in each instance its right and left, and that is why the parts of the body are also right and left parts. Accordingly, it belongs to the being of bodily things that they are co-constituted by orientation. There is no such thing as a hand in general. Every hand, or every glove, is a right or a left one, since the glove in use is in its sense designed to go along with bodily movements. Every bodily movement is always an ‘I move’ and not ‘it moves itself,’ if we disregard certain well-defined organic movements. Thus things like gloves are intrinsically oriented to the right and left but not, say, a thing like the hammer, which I hold in my hand but which does not go along with my self-movement in the strict sense; rather, it is moved by me such that it moves itself. Accordingly, there are also no right and left hammers. GA20EN §25

Orientedness is a structural moment of being-in-the-world itself and not the property of a subject which has a feeling for right and left. It is only from the basic constitution of Dasein as being-in-the-world that we can understand why concern can constantly orient   itself, that is, can in each instance comport itself in its orientation in such and such a way, determining itself on the basis of that with which it intimately dwells and concerns itself. An isolated subject with the ‘feeling for right and left’ could never find its way in its world. This phenomenon can be clarified only when the subject is taken for what it actually is, as always already in its world. The appropriation and determination of a ‘there’ is indeed impossible without a right and left, but it is just as impossible without a world, without the always prior presence of an environmental thing upon which Dasein orients itself. In short, it would be impossible if Dasein were not IN-BEING, already intimately involved with something at the time; for only then does it orient itself in certain directions according to a region. GA20EN §25

In the preceding analysis of the basic constitution of Dasein as being-in-the-world, we have thematized the world as the wherein of Dasein in its specific sense of IN-BEING. But also in this analysis of the world we have not brought into relief all the phenomena which showed themselves there. In explicating the environing world of the craftsman, the phenomenon of the public world appeared. In the work under concern as well as in the material being employed and the hand tool being used, there are others, for whom the work is, by whom the tool in its turn is produced, there with [the craftsman]. In the world of concern, others are encountered; and the encountering is a being-there-with, not a being-on-hand. We did not consider these others any further with respect to their mode of being. And so far, we have not considered the manner of their encounter at all. GA20EN §26

This co-Dasein of others right in everydayness is characteristic of IN-BEING as absorption in the world under concern. The others are there with me in the world under concern, in which everyone dwells, even when they are not bodily perceived as on hand. If others were encountered merely as things, perhaps they would not really be there. All the same, their being-there-with in the environing world is wholly immediate, inconspicuous, obvious, similar to the character of the presence of world-things. GA20EN §26

The referential contexts which we brought out earlier always appresent something environmental. But the environing world can now in turn, as a particular world, at the same time appresent a being intimately involved with it—Dasein. For such an appresentation it is not necessary for others to be ‘personally’ near, so to speak. But even when the others are encountered personally or, as we can most appropriately put it here, “in the flesh,” in their bodily presence, this being of the others is not that of the ‘subject’ or the ‘person  ’ in the sense in which this is taken conceptually in philosophy. Rather, I meet the other in the field, at work, on the street while on the way to work or strolling along with nothing to do—always in a concern or non-concern according to his IN-BEING. He is appresented in his co-Dasein by his world or by our common environment. The distinction between a personal meeting and the other’s being gone takes effect on the basis of this environmental encounter of one another, this environmentally appresented being-with-one-another. This with-one-another is an environmental and worldly concern with one another, having to do with one another in the one world, being dependent on one another. The most everyday of activities, passing by and avoiding one another on the street, already involves this environmental encounter, based on this street common to us. Avoiding makes sense only for an entity who is with one another, for an oriented and concerned being-in-the-world. Avoiding is merely a phenomenon of being preoccupied with one another, an everyday phenomenon pushed to the extreme, which is for the most part a caring for and with one another in having nothing to do with one another. GA20EN §26

It is important for this basic phenomenal composition of being-with-one-another to be made perfectly clear. In spite of all the former prejudices of philosophy and all the usual attempts to explain and deduce such phenomena, this phenomenon must be brought to an unadulterated givenness. And this is possible, since from the start the basic constitution of Dasein as being-in-the-world already stands before us. In order to understand not only this character of being-with but also the following characters, it must be kept in mind from the start that all these phenomena, which we naturally can discuss here only in a sequential treatment, are not derived from one another in accordance, say, with their structure of being, but are co-original with each other. It is true that all other characters can be made understandable only in terms of the basic constitution of IN-BEING, but they do not first turn up in the course of being Dasein or in any other development of Dasein. GA20EN §26

This being-with-one-another is now determined by all the characters which we pointed to earlier in relation to IN-BEING. That is, even the most indifferent being-with-one-another along the lines of directedness toward one another (for example, in spatial orientation), even this is understandable only if being-with-one-another means being-with-one-another in a world. This is the basis upon which this being-with-one-another, which can be indifferent and unconscious to the individual, can develop the various possibilities of community as well as of society. Naturally these higher structures and the ways they are founded cannot be pursued in greater detail here. GA20EN §26

The apparently presuppositionless approach which says, ‘First there is only a subject, and then a world is brought to it,’ is far from being critical and phenomenally adequate. So is the assumption which holds that first a subject is given only for itself and the question is, how does it come to another subject? Since only the lived experiences of my own interior are first given, how is it possible for me to apprehend the lived experiences of others as well, how can I “feel my way into” them, empathize with them? It is assumed that a subject is encapsulated within itself and now has the task of empathizing with another subject. This way of formulating the question is absurd, since there never is such a subject in the sense it is assumed here. If the constitution of what is Dasein is instead regarded without presuppositions as IN-BEING and being-with in the presuppositionless immediacy of everydayness, it then becomes clear that the problem of empathy is just as absurd as the question of the reality of the external world. GA20EN §26

Thus the exposition of this new character of IN-BEING—being-with—specifically in its mode of being drawn from the world, also presses toward the question from which we started: Who is this Dasein in its everydayness? We must not succumb to the deception that when we say, “Dasein is in each instance mine”—the being which I myself am—, the answer to the question of the who of Dasein in its everydayness is also already given. Precisely because the Who asks about the who of its being, it codetermines itself with regard to the being of the Dasein which in its manner of being is in each instance what it is. This phenomenological explication takes the Dasein in its mode of being of everydayness, in concerned absorption with one another in the world. Dasein as being-with is this being-with-one-another. The who of the being of being-with-one-another therefore receives its answer from this being-with-one-another. The who of everydayness is the ‘Anyone’ [das ‘Man’]. GA20EN §26

Wilhelm von Humboldt   was the first to point out that certain languages, when they want to say ‘I,’ formulate this ‘I’ which is to be expressed—the Dasein itself—by the word ‘here,’ so that ‘I’ means as much as ‘here.’ The ‘thou’—the other—is the ‘there,’ and the ‘he’—the one who first of all is not directly and expressly present—is the ‘yonder.’ In grammatical terms, the personal pronouns—I, thou, he—are expressed by locative adverbs. But perhaps this formulation is already inverted. There is a long-standing dispute over what the original meaning of these expressions ‘here,’ ‘there,’ ‘yonder’ really is, whether it is adverbial or pronominal. But in the end, the dispute is without foundation, once it is seen that these locative adverbs in their sense relate to the ‘I’ qua Dasein itself. They have within themselves what we earlier designated as the orientation to Dasein itself. ‘Here,’ ‘there,’ ‘yonder’ are not real determinations of place as characters of world-things, but are rather determinations of Dasein. In other words, these determinations of Dasein ‘here,’ ‘there,’ ‘yonder’ as ‘I,’ ‘thou,’ ‘he’ are not locative adverbs at all. They are also not expressions for ‘I,’ ‘Thou,’ ‘He’ in a pointed sense such that they would refer to certain special things that are. They are rather adverbs of Dasein and as such pronouns at the same time. This shows that grammar simply fails in the face of such phenomena. Grammatical categories are not tailored to such phenomena and are not at all derived by regarding the phenomena themselves but rather with regard to a particular form of assertion, the theoretical proposition. All grammatical categories are derived from a particular theory of language, from the theory of logos   as proposition, that is, from ‘logic.’ There are thus difficulties from the start if one tries to clarify such linguistic phenomena as we have discussed by means of these grammatical categories. The proper approach is to get behind the grammatical categories and forms and to try to determine the sense from the phenomena themselves. The source of this phenomenon, which Humboldt exhibited without understanding it in its ultimate ontological consequences, lies in this, that Dasein, to which we have attributed an original spatiality, when it speaks of itself, speaks in terms of that in which it finds itself. In everyday self-articulation, Dasein considers itself in terms of spatiality, to be taken in the sense described earlier of the remotive orientation of IN-BEING. It must be noted that the sense of ‘here,’ ‘there,’ and ‘yonder’ are just as problematic and difficult as that of ‘I,’ ‘thou,’ and ‘he.’ We shall succeed in exhibiting the actual phenomenon only when Dasein itself is defined by IN-BEING, so that we see how the average way of being-with-one-another, and at the same time the way which defines being-in-the-world, expresses itself in this manner in terms of spatiality. It would be basically wrong to think that such modes of expression are signs of a backward language, still oriented to space and matrix instead of to the spiritual ‘I.’ But are ‘here,’ ‘there,’ and ‘yonder’ less ‘spiritual’ and puzzling than the ‘I’? Is it not rather a more appropriate expression of Dasein itself if one does not cut oneself off from understanding it only because spatiality is oriented toward the distinctive space of natural science? GA20EN §26

So far, we have considered the question of the structure of the world as worldhood (meaningfulness) and the question of the who of this being-in-the-world. Here the theme was always being-in-the-world, which we identified as the basic constitution of Dasein. The special explication of the world and of the Anyone were always only specific emphases of this structural whole of being-in-the-world itself. Finally, it was shown that the Dasein in the Anyone itself represents only a specific way of being-in-the-world. The who of Dasein is in each instance a way to be, whether authentically or inauthentically. Thus the question of the who of this entity also referred back to a kind of being, to a kind of being-in-the-world. But this implies that the being of Dasein is to be defined ultimately from IN-BEING as such, and that only the correct explication of this basic phenomenon, of IN-BEING, provides the warrant for founding the remaining co-original structures of Dasein. This is also why, already at the beginning of the analysis, we interjected a provisional characterization of this constitutive state of being, in which we first clarified in very rough fashion the sense of this ‘in.’ in contrast to a merely spatial ‘in’ It can now be asserted more clearly that the being of Dasein is not of the mode of being of the world, it is neither the being-handy nor the being-on-hand of something. It is just as little the being of a ‘subject,’ whose being would repeatedly, in a formally unexpressed way, have to be taken as being on hand. Should we be permitted to maintain the orientation to a world and a ‘subject,’ however, we could then say that the being of Dasein is precisely the being of the ‘between’ subject and world. This ‘between,’ which of course does not first arise by having a subject meet with a world, is the Dasein itself, but once again not as a property of a subject. This is the very reason why, strictly speaking, Dasein cannot be taken as a ‘between,’ since the talk of a ‘between’ subject and world always already presupposes that two entities are given between which there is supposed to be a relation. IN-BEING is not a ‘between’ of real entities but the being of Dasein itself, to which a world belongs at any given time and which for the time being is mine, and first and foremost is the Anyone. That is why it is always wrong, at least if we want to speak in a conceptually rigorous way, to designate human Dasein as a microcosm over against the world as a macrocosm, since the mode of being of Dasein is essentially different from any kind of cosmos. GA20EN §27

The analysis of the world and of the Anyone time and again encroaches upon this phenomenon of IN-BEING. We must now follow this direction; we must try to find out how far the specific phenomenon of IN-BEING itself can be uncovered and specified. On this path of an even more original explication of IN-BEING, we shall try to advance to the structure of the being of Dasein, from which we shall then draw and formulate the comprehensive terminology for the determinations of the constitution of Dasein. We call this structure of being care. GA20EN §27

With this explication of IN-BEING as such, we come to the third stage of the analysis of the basic phenomenon of being-in-the-world as a whole. Through the analysis of IN-BEING, we must now also be in a position to clarify the phenomena which already necessarily had to be drawn into the earlier analyses: concern, of which we constantly spoke in its function of primary appresenting, and which we also defined as understanding; then knowing, which we characterized as a specific way of cultivating understanding. The investigation of this basic character of Dasein [IN-BEING] is therefore divided into four parts. It will highlight 1) the phenomenon of discoveredness, 2) falling as a basic movement of Dasein, 3) the structure of uncanniness (away from home—familiarity), and 4) care. GA20EN §27

The analysis of Dasein as being-with relating to its mode of being as the Anyone served to show that Dasein itself, more accurately one oneself, is co-discovered in the world of concern precisely in the public world. The world is at any given time not only disclosed, in letting something be encountered in concern, in its meaningfulness as the oriented wherein of the being of Dasein, but Dasein is itself there relative to its IN-BEING, itself there for itself. Dasein in its being-there-with, intimately involved in what is of concern, is itself discovered in a certain sense. GA20EN §28

These two phenomena, the disclosedness of the world itself along with the fact that being-in-the-world is in turn co-discovered, define the unified phenomenon which we call discoveredness. This expression seeks to note above all that here it is still not and for the most part never a matter of a special thematic knowledge of the world or even a definite knowledge of itself; what alone is at stake here is the structure of the being of Dasein itself which first and foremost founds such a knowledge and so makes it possible, so that the world as disclosed can be encountered in a ‘there.’ ‘There’ is the very being which we call Dasein [there-being]. In thus being co-discovered, this Dasein is not expressly thematically had or known. This structure of discoveredness is to be taken rather as a structure of being, as a way to be. The adverbs of Dasein with their pronominal sense of ‘I’ and ‘thou’ make my own IN-BEING as Dasein and the other as co-Dasein evident only as a ‘here’ and a ‘yonder.’ ‘Here’ and ‘yonder’ are possible only insofar as there is something like a ‘there’ at all. This ‘there’ is our being toward being-with-one-another insofar as the possibility of a stanced totality [Bewandtnisganzheit  ] for orientation subsists at all. A material thing occurring in the world is itself never a ‘there’ but is instead encountered in such a ‘there.’ We accordingly designate the entity which we also call man as the entity which is itself its ‘there.’ With this, we first come to the strict formulation of the meaning of the term ‘Dasein.’ GA20EN §28

The specific discoveredness of the world, which we have called disclosedness to distinguish it from that of IN-BEING, is provisionally defined sufficiently by the analysis of meaningfulness and worldhood as that disclosedness which is given because the entity having the character of Dasein discloses or has disclosed a world. The co-discoveredness of IN-BEING itself, that I am to my Dasein itself first in a worldly way, that is, I have myself in a worldly way with and in concerned absorption in the world, is not a consequence of the disclosedness of the world, but is co-original with it. The structure of this co-discoveredness of Dasein with its world must now be defined in more detail. GA20EN §28

We said that concern is absorbed in meaningfulness. It is a dwelling intimately with the world by way of concern, with the world in its conduciveness, usefulness, and the like. Insofar as the world is encountered in these characters of meaningfulness, it encounters concern, it addresses itself as it were constantly to a being which is dependent upon the world, a being which has the sense of caring, of being involved in caring about something. This concerned dependence upon the world, which defines the mode of being of Dasein, is constantly being solicited by the world itself in this or that way. The world solicits concern: This means that, as it is discovered in concern, the world does not meet with a mere looking and staring at something on hand; rather, it primarily and constantly meets with—even in looking at the world—a caring being-in-it. In other words, being-in-the-world is so to speak constantly being summoned by the threatening and non-threatening character of the world. In all preoccupation with the world, Dasein as IN-BEING is in some way solicited and summoned (way of being disposed); this may only be in the form of an undisturbed performance, the soothing uniformity of an unthreatened employment, the indifference of the everyday handling of what is placed under care. GA20EN §28

These characters of indifference: undisturbed preoccupation, the soothing uniformity of everyday action, the indifference in handling matters can (and even will) at any time be replaced by restlessness and uneasiness, or in turn by the sense of being unencumbered and letting oneself go to the point of soaring frenzy. The phenomena of indifference and its interruptions by solicitation are in general possible only because concerned being-in-the-world can be addressed originally by the threatening and the non-threatening, in short, by the world as meaningfulness. It is only because Dasein itself is in itself care that the world is experienced in its threatening character, in its meaningfulness. This does not mean that the caring Dasein thus construes the world ‘subjectively.’ That would be a complete inversion of the elements involved. Rather, the caring IN-BEING discovers the world in its meaningfulness. GA20EN §28

Finding itself in being-in-the-world, in short, disposedness, belongs with being-in-the-world as such. We choose this term in order to avoid from the start regarding the finding-itself as some sort of a reflexion   upon itself. We shall learn to see this phenomenon more rigorously with the analysis of care itself. Dasein ‘has’ its world, has it as a disclosed world, and Dasein finds itself. These are two phenomenological statements which refer to one and the same state of affairs, to the basic structure of being-in-the-world, to discoveredness. Disposition expresses a way of finding that Dasein is in its being as being in each instance its own there, and how it is this there. We must therefore totally give up any attempt to interpret disposition as a finding of inner lived experiences or any sort of apprehension of an inner something. Disposition is rather a basic mode of the being of Dasein, of its IN-BEING. This character of discoveredness in disposition is related to being-in-the-world as such, specifically in the everyday way where one always finds oneself where one dwells, such that in all of what we do and where we dwell, we are in some sense—as we say—‘affected.’ This being affected does not need to be conscious and can be a matter of complete indifference—the sense of sameness, dreariness, emptiness, and staleness of Dasein—characters which in the most fleeting moment of Dasein are always constitutive of absorption in the world. GA20EN §28

Disposition itself is now the genuine way to be Dasein, the way to have itself as discovered, the mode in which Dasein itself is its there. The there is thereby certainly not understood as an object, as a possible theme of apprehension. IN-BEING as finding-itself rather means that this “there” is unthematically, but for this very reason, authentically discovered, so that this discoveredness constitutes nothing other than the way to be. Discoveredness as a constitutive state of an entity whose essence it is to be, can therefore only be understood as a kind of being and possibility of being of Dasein itself. This is only the application of a general ontological principle which is valid for all characters of the being of Dasein, that they are not properties but are all Dasein’s possibilities to be, modes of its very being. GA20EN §28

Discoveredness belongs to being-in-the-world constitutively. This means that Dasein as concern is essentially a situated [befindliches] being, a being disposed toward the disclosed world. Disclosing a world is always already a self-finding. The original belonging-together of disposedness and disclosedness of world must be brought home phenomenally: Dasein does not first find itself by itself in order then from there to look around itself for a world. Rather, disposition is itself a character of IN-BEING, which means always already being in a world. The most immediate phenomenal concretion of this structure of IN-BEING in discoveredness must, as always, be sought in the everydayness of being with one another. GA20EN §28

Understanding is a kind of being of the entity of the character of IN-BEING. It is the being-involved-with of disclosed concernability, specifically a disposed involvement such that it always co-discovers itself. Understanding as disposed disclosure and having disclosed the world is as such a disclosive self-finding. As discoveredness makes up the structure of being of the full constitution of Dasein, since it applies to the world, IN-BEING, and every way to be, so also the enactment of being belonging to it, understanding, always extends to the full understandability, which means to world, co-Dasein, and one’s own Dasein. It can thus be the case that the enactment of understanding at the time thematically refers in particular to the world, for example, or to the co-Dasein of others or to my own Dasein. But in each case the phenomena which belong to the scope of discoveredness, that is, to the full understandability of Dasein itself, are always co-understood. This is an apriori principle for understanding, without which we would constantly go astray in defining this phenomenon. It is a deception, which is connected with ignorance of the genuine structure of Dasein, to think that there is a separate understanding of a bare world or of an alien Dasein. This structure of understanding, which is grounded in Dasein itself and which defines understanding as the enactment of the being of discoveredness, provides crucial orientation points for all problems of hermeneutics. Such a hermeneutics is possible only on the basis of the explication of Dasein itself, the kind of being to which understanding belongs. The possibility that there is something which cannot be understood is first given with the orbit of understandability marked out by discoveredness, an orbit which encompasses the world, IN-BEING, and the co-Dasein of others. Every ‘not-there’ and everything understood in the there is but a modification of the there. It is only on the basis of understandability that there is a possible access to something which is in principle incomprehensible, that is, to nature. Something like nature can be discovered only because there is history, because Dasein is itself the primarily historical being. And only because of this are there natural sciences. GA20EN §28

The primary sense of the term ‘understanding’ as we use it here becomes clear in certain idioms which we often find in language. When I say to another, ‘you have understood me,’ I mean thereby, ‘You know where you’re at with me as well as with yourself.’ Understanding in this sense gives the authentic original sense, that is, understanding is the discoveredness of the whereat-being with something, how matters stand with it, the discoveredness of the standing [Bewandtnis] which it has with the environing world, my own Dasein, and the being of others. Discoveredness of the standing, such that one has become it in his IN-BEING, means having understood. Having understood means nothing other than being this temporally particular standing. It is only a matter of a variation of this authentic understanding when this becomes but an investigative understanding engaged in taking cognizance, which however involves specific modifications in the being of what is understood. GA20EN §28

The child’s question, “What is this thing?”, is thus answered by stating what it is used for, defining what one finds in terms of what one does with it. This definition and interpretation at the same time make reference to IN-BEING, to preoccupation with the thing under consideration. And with such an interpretation, this thing only now actually enters the environing world as something present and understandable, even though only provisionally, for it is truly understood only when one has entered into the standing [Bewandtnis] which the environmental thing has. The interpretation appresents the what-for of a thing and so brings out the reference of ‘in-order-to.’ It brings to prominence ‘as what’ the encountered thing can be taken, how it is to be understood. The primary form of all interpretation as the cultivation of understanding is the consideration [Ansprechen  ] of something in terms of its ‘as what,’ considering something as something. This amounts to an appresenting in talking over what is thus appresented in the primary and guiding consideration. This functional form of interpretation, ‘considering something as something,’ thereby does not need to be expressed in the linguistic form of a proposition. The grammatical form of the proposition is always but a form of expression of the primary and authentic proposition, namely, this consideration of something as something. In thus bringing out the what-for and the for-sake-of-which of something, the incomprehensibility is removed, the meaning of meaningfulness is made explicit, it is put into words. As a meaning thus brought out, it can now itself get its word. And only now is there the possibility of distinguishing the highlighted meaning as a verbal meaning from the subject matter meant—a process complicated in its structure and varying in turn in various possibilities of interpretation, the account of which belongs to logic. GA20EN §28

But there is something essential for us in what has just been said: There is verbal expression—language—only insofar as there is considering, and such a consideration of something as something is possible only insofar as there is interpreting; interpretation in turn is only insofar as there is understanding, and understanding is only insofar as Dasein has the structure-of-being of discoveredness, which means that Dasein itself is defined as being-in-the-world. This continuity which founds the several phenomena—considering, interpreting, understanding, being discovered, IN-BEING, Dasein—at the same time serves to define language, or gives the horizon from which the essence of language can first and foremost be seen and defined. Language is nothing but a distinctive possibility of the very being of Dasein, where Dasein is to be taken in the previously explicated structure. GA20EN §28

In what follows, we shall first consider the discourse of everydayness. Language is the possibility of the being of Dasein such that language makes Dasein manifest in its discoveredness by way of interpretation and thus by way of meaning. Dasein is thus at least already exposed in the way we understand its constitution in regard to IN-BEING and being-with. The structures already considered are necessary structures for the essential structure of language itself, but they are not yet sufficient. GA20EN §28

Language makes manifest. First of all, it does not produce anything like discoveredness. Rather, discoveredness and its enactment of being, understanding as well as its continuation in interpretation, being grounded in the basic constitution of IN-BEING, are conditions of possibility for something becoming manifest. As conditions of being, they enter into the definition of the essence of language, since they are conditions of possibility for such manifestation. If language is a possibility of the being of Dasein, then it must be made evident in its basic structures in terms of the constitution of Dasein. Henceforth, the apriori of the structures of Dasein must provide the basis for linguistics. GA20EN §28

As self-articulation of IN-BEING and being-with, speaking is being toward the world—discourse. It expresses itself first and foremost as a speaking concern for a world. This means that discourse is discourse about something, such that the about-which becomes manifest in the discourse. This becoming manifest of what is under discussion for all that does not need to become known expressly and thematically. Likewise, discoursing about . . . does not stand primarily in the service of an investigative knowledge. Rather, making manifest through discourse first and foremost has the sense of interpretive appresentation of the environment under concern; to begin with, it is not at all tailored to knowledge, research, theoretical propositions, and propositional contexts. It is therefore fundamentally wrong to begin the analysis of language by examining the theoretical proposition of logic or the like. But to understand this, the founded sense of the being of knowing and interpreting must first become evident. GA20EN §28

As being-in-the-world, discoursing is first discoursing about something. Every discourse has its about-which. This about-which of discourse is purely and simply what is under consideration, which as such is therefore always already there from the start, having the character of world or of IN-BEING. This about-which of discourse becomes manifest insofar as something is said about something in every discourse. From the about-which of discourse we must distinguish a second structural moment, the said as such. When I talk about a thing, for example, a chair, this thing is in itself, as it is on hand in the world, the about-which. When I say, ‘it is upholstered,’ this being-upholstered of the chair is the said as such; it does not coincide with the chair. In what is thus said, the about-which is talked over; in talking anything over what is considered is talked over as well. GA20EN §28

The enactment of the being of discoveredness, in the two directions of disclosedness of the world and discoveredness of the Dasein involved with itself in its disposition, is understanding as the enactment of the being of discoveredness. The mode of enactment of understanding is interpreting, specifically as the cultivation, appropriation, and preservation of what is discovered in understanding. The meaningful expressness of this interpretation is now discourse. Expressness is taken here in the sense of the appresentation of meaningfulness and of IN-BEING in correlations and contexts of meaning. Discourse is a mode of being of understanding and so a mode of being of being-in-the-world, since discourse is understood only on the basis of discoveredness. GA20EN §28

Here is something essential to keep in mind: Phonetic speaking and acoustical hearing are in their being founded in discoursing and hearing as modes of being of being-in-the-world and being-with. There is phonetic speaking only because there is the possibility of discourse, just as there is acoustical hearing only because being-with-one-another is characterized originally as being-with in the sense of listening-to-one-another. Being-with is not being on hand also among other humans; as being-in-the-world it means at the same time being ‘in bondage’ [hörig  ] to the others, that is, ‘heeding’ and ‘obeying’ them, listening [hören] or not listening to them. Being-with has the structure of belonging [Zu(ge)hörigkeit] to the other. It is only by virtue of this primary belonging that there is something like separation, group formation, development of society, and the like. This listening to one another, in which being-with cultivates itself, is more accurately a compliance in being-with-one-another, a co-enactment in concern. The negative forms of enactment, non-compliance, not listening, opposition, and the like are really only privative modes of belonging itself. It is on the basis of such a capacity to listen constitutive of IN-BEING that there is something like hearkening. GA20EN §28

We shall now consider the third phenomenon which is given with discourse: idle talk. In cultivating the discoveredness of Dasein, discourse has a distinctive function: it lays out or interprets, that is, it brings the referential relations of meaningfulness into relief in communication. In communicating in this way, discourse articulates the meanings and meaningful correlations thus brought out. In being articulated, in the articulated word, the meaning highlighted in interpretation becomes available for being-with-one-another. The word is articulated in public. This articulated discourse preserves interpretation within itself. This is the sense of what we mean when we say that words have their meaning. This verbal meaning and the verbal whole as language is the interpretation of world and Dasein (IN-BEING) communicated in being with one another. The utterance of interpretation is a secularization of discoveredness, making it worldly. GA20EN §28

The term ‘falling’ designates a movement of the being of the happening of Dasein and once again should not be taken as a value judgment, as if it indicated a base property of Dasein which crops up from time to time, which is to be deplored and perhaps eliminated in advanced stages of human culture. Like discoveredness, being-with and IN-BEING, falling refers to a constitutive structure of the being of Dasein, in particular a specific phenomenon of IN-BEING, in which Dasein first constantly has its being. If we orient ourselves once again in the ‘between’ of world and Dasein, then the dwelling in the Anyone and in the idle talk of this being is in an uprooted state of suspension. But this uprooting is just what constitutes the solid everydayness of Dasein, [and idle talk is] one way of falling in which Dasein loses itself. GA20EN §29

It was said that interpretation, as a cultivation of discoveredness, is the primary knowing. Discoveredness is constitutive of IN-BEING. All concern is as such discovery and interpretation, inasmuch as it appresents its disclosed environing world, the work-world, in its references. Concern has its orientation and guidance. Concern, whose care has been fixed in a for-the-sake-of-which, and which as concern moves in an around-which and for-which, is guided by a looking around, by circumspection. Circumspection oriented to the presence of what is of concern provides each setting-to-work, procuring, and performing with the way to work it out, the means to carry it out, the right occasion, and the appropriate time. This sight of circumspection is the skilled possibility of concerned discovering, of concerned seeing. Seeing is here neither restricted to seeing with the eyes nor is the term in this usage related primarily to sense perception. Rather, seeing is here used in the wider sense of concerned and caring appresentation. GA20EN §29

Concern is never present as an indifferent being-in-the-world, possibly in analogy with the pure occurrence of a thing. Rather, IN-BEING as being-with-one-another is absorption in the world under concern. Since the Anyone is a way of being which temporalizes Dasein itself, idle talk, that is, the public way of interpreting things in ambiguity, brings with it the cultivation of a possibility of missing itself, of seeking itself only in the Anyone. Dasein itself cultivates this possibility of being, advancing it as its possibility of missing itself. It should be noted that this way of being peculiar to falling is not the result of any sort of circumstances and contingencies of the world. Dasein as falling is in its being itself tempting, inasmuch as it lays the possibility of falling before itself. Tempting itself in this way, it maintains itself in its fallenness by cultivating the supposition that the full realm of its own possibilities is guaranteed to it with its absorption in the Anyone and in idle talk. This means that the falling that tempts is tranquilizing. It thus increasingly sees no need ever to force this being in the Anyone before a question or even to modify it. This tranquilizing of fallenness is however not a matter of its standing still in its movement but rather involves a creeping intensification. In the tranquilized obviousness of such a being, Dasein drifts toward alienation from itself. In other words, seductive tranquilization in its very sense is alienating, so much so that Dasein leaves no possibility of being open for itself other than that of being in the Anyone. GA20EN §29

We shall now consider dread as a fourth phenomenon in connection with our analysis of fear. In addition to all of these modifications of fear there is a being afraid which at bottom can no longer be called that. For the of-which of fear can remain indefinite, no longer being this or that worldly thing on hand. Correspondingly, IN-BEING as being-involved-with is no longer affected in a definite way. No real confusion ensues, since the possibility of confusion exists only when a definite orientation of concern gets all mixed up, that is, when the circumspectively disclosed IN-BEING in its definite, factual, environmental possibilities falls into disarray. What threatens is nothing definite and worldly, and yet it is not without the impending approach which characterizes the threatening. Indeed, what threatens in this indefinite way is now quite near and can be so close that it is oppressive. It can be so near and yet not present as this or that, not something fearful, something to be feared by way of a definite reference of the environing world in its meaningfulness. Dread can ‘befall’ us right in the midst of the most familiar environment. Oftentimes it does not even have to involve the phenomenon of darkness or of being alone which frequently accompanies dread. We then say: one feels uncanny [or in more idiomatic English: “Things look so weird all of a sudden” or “I’m getting this eerie feeling”]. One no longer feels at home in his most familiar environment, the one closest to him; but this does not come about in such a way that a definite region in the hitherto known and familiar world breaks down in its orientation, nor such that one is not at home in the surroundings in which one now finds himself, but instead in other surroundings. On the contrary, in dread, being-in-the-world is totally transformed into a ‘not at home’ purely and simply. GA20EN §30

It is not this or that concern which is threatened, but being-in-the-world as such. Inherent in being-in-the-world, however, (and now we need to bring in what we have already discussed for the understanding of the entire analysis of dread) is the world in its worldhood. The of-which of dread, which is nothing worldly, is the in-which which is constitutive of Dasein, of IN-BEING itself. That of which dread is in dread is the in-which of being-in-the-world, and that about which one is in dread is this very same being-in-the-world, specifically in its primary discoveredness of ‘not at home.’ In dread, therefore, the of-which of dread and the about-which of being in dread are not only indefinite in a worldly sense, but they coincide. More precisely stated, in dread they are not yet even separated; Dasein is the of-which and the about-which. In dread being-in-the-world as such discloses itself, and that not as this definite fact but in its facticity. Dread is nothing but the disposition to uncanniness. GA20EN §30

It is this peculiar structure of the being of the entity, that it is an entity for which, within its IN-BEING, that very being is at issue, which we must now grasp in greater detail. But how? We shall define this structure terminologically as care and designate it as a primal structure, the structure of Dasein itself. But I would like to emphasize expressly that this structure does not uncover the ultimate context of the being of Dasein. It is the penultimate phenomenon, so to speak, on the way toward the authentic structure of the being of Dasein. Care is the term for the being of Dasein pure and simple. It has the formal   structure, an entity for which, intimately involved in its being-in-the-world, this very being is at issue. GA20EN §31

The definition of the structure of care already shows that this phenomenon, which thus authentically comprehends being, exhibits a multiple structure. And if Dasein in its being is generally defined by care, then these phenomena must have already been in our sights in the foregoing analyses of Dasein. In fact we dealt with the phenomenon of care in a certain way right from the start, when we spoke of concern as the authentic mode of being-in-the-world. Concern itself is but a mode of being of care, specifically because care is the character of being of an entity which is essentially defined by being-in-the-world. To put it better, care qua structure of Dasein is IN-BEING as concern. Caring as it is in the world is eo ipso concern. The expression which we use in the definition of the formal structure of care, ‘being is at issue,’ must now be more accurately defined. GA20EN §31

Care has the formal structure of being-ahead-of-itself-in-already-being-involved-in something. This being-ahead implies a structure whereby care is always a being about something, specifically such that Dasein in concern, in every performance, in every provision and production of something in particular, is at the same time concerned for its Dasein. This being-ahead-of-itself signifies precisely that care or Dasein in care has thrust its own being ahead as existential facticity. This being out for its own being, which is at issue for it, always takes place already in being involved in something, from a being-always-already-in-the-world-involved-in. (IN-BEING is therefore constitutive for every kind of being of Dasein—even for authentic being!) The structure of ‘being out for something’ which I do not yet have, but being-out in an already-involved-in which eo ipso is being out for something, brings with it the phenomenon of not yet having something which I am out for. This phenomenon of not yet having something which I am out for is called being in want. It is not merely a pure and simple objective not-having but is always a not-having of something that I am out for. It is what first constitutes being-in-want, lack, need. Later, as the interpretation proceeds, this basic structure of care will lead us back to the constitution of being which we shall then come to understand as time. But first it is important to bring out a few more structures in care itself, specifically in relation to what we have learned in the preceding analysis of Dasein. GA20EN §31

The interpretation of Dasein in the everydayness of being opened the prospect for understanding the fundamental constitutive states of this entity. Structures like being-in-the-world, IN-BEING and being-with, the Anyone, discoveredness, understanding, falling, and care came to light. The latter phenomenon at the same time reveals the unifying root of this manifold of structures. We have constantly reiterated that these structures are co-original. To say that they are co-original means that they always already belong with and to the phenomenon of care. They are ingrained in it even when they do not come to the foreground. These structures are therefore not optional additions to something which might from the start be akin to care without them. Nor do we have something which could be shaped into what we have called the phenomenon of care by putting these structures together. But if our inquiry is pointed toward the being of Dasein, as we have constantly done here, then whenever Dasein is interrogated, it is always already meant in the co-originality of these structures. Thus, when I phenomenologically envisage discoveredness or the Anyone or falling, the unity of these structures is always co-intended. GA20EN §32