being, even then the essence of Da-sein is all too easily distorted by this determination. For, even in this case, transcendence presupposes a below and a hither side [Unten und Diesseits] and is still in danger of being misinterpreted as an activity of an “I,” a subject. [. . .] Inceptually Da-sein stands in the grounding [Gründung] of the event and fathoms [ergründet] the truth of being, and does not pass from beings to their being. [. . .] [I]f a comparison were still possible at all—which is not the case—the relationship is actually the other way around. (GA 65, 322/CPFE, 226/CPOE, 255; tr. mod.)
Rather than evoking excess, the Heidegger of the turn finds it more illuminating to use the terminology of interiority. When the background of presence is viewed in terms of presence, it is appropriate to characterize this background as exteriority, but when presence is viewed in term of its background, it accordingly becomes an “inside” or “interior.” This is the basic motive for the later Heidegger’s characterization of complicated presence as “intensity” or “intimacy” (Innigkeit) and of Dasein as “insistency” or “instantaneity” (Inständigkeit, Inständlichkeit).
When the ontothnetological approach from Dasein to the sense of being (being2) is “complemented” with this reverse move, it is at the same time incorporated into a wider framework, namely, the two-directional reciprocity of Dasein and being2. In Contributions and the subsequent texts, the “turn” (Kehre) therefore finally becomes a name for this very reciprocity implied by the word Ereignis itself.15 Being2 and Dasein mutually define each other: the emergence of being1 from being2—of presence from its background, of unconcealment from concealment—is an event that takes place (sich ereignen) by appropriating or taking over (ereignen) the there (Da) provided by Da-sein as the place or site of its taking-place. Conversely, the defining “property” (Eigentum) of Da-sein—its properness or “authenticity” (Eigentlichkeit), i.e., its proper selfhood—is precisely to be the “there” of the “there is,” i.e., the place in which meaningful presence can take place (GA 65, 319–20/CPFE, 224–25/CPOE, 253). The most compact and lucid formula for this postmetaphysical articulation of human identity is to be found in Identity and Difference: “The essence of identity [Identität] is a property [Eigentum] of the event [Ereignisses]” (ID, 27/IdD, 39; tr. mod., cf. GA 70, 129; GA 79, 127/BFL, 119). In other words, the defining selfhood or identity of Da-sein is to be the place into which meaningful presence (being1) can emerge from its background (being2). As such a taking-place of presence, beyng (being3) is the reciprocal correlation between Dasein and being2.