genuine way. The genuine, actual, though inauthentic understanding of the self takes place in such a way that this self, the self of our thoughtlessly random, common, everyday existence, "reflects" itself to itself from out of that to which it has given itself over.
But the question refuses to be dismissed: How are we to make philosophically comprehensible this mysterious reflection of the self from things? One thing is certain. We can succeed in finding this interpretation only if we adhere to the phenomenon and do not, by premature explanations, cause it to disappear at the moment when it first seems as if we cannot have done with an actual phenomenon, so that we would feel compelled to search for a way out.
The self that is reflected to us from things is not "in" the things in the sense that it would be extant among them as a portion of them or in them as an appendage or a layer deposited on them. If we are to encounter the self as coming to us from things then the Dasein must in some way be with them. The Dasein's mode of being, its existence, must make comprehensible that and in what way the asserted reflection of the inauthentic self from things is possible. The Dasein must be with things. We have also already heard that the Dasein's comportments, in which it exists, are intentionally directed-toward. The directedness of these comportments expresses a being with that with which we have to do, a dwelling-with, a going-along-with the givens. Certainly, but intentionality as thus conceived still doesn't make comprehensible how we rediscover ourselves in things. The Dasein surely doesn't "transport" itself over into the place of things and surely doesn't put itself as a being of their type into their company so as later to discover itself as being present there. Of course not. Yet it is only on the basis of an antecedent "transposition" that we can, after all, come back to ourselves from the direction of things. The question is only how to understand this "transposition" and how the ontological constitution of the Dasein makes it possible.
One thing is certain. The appeal to the intentionality of comportments toward things does not make comprehensible the phenomenon occupying us, or, speaking more cautiously, the sole characterization of intentionality hitherto customary in phenomenology proves to be inadequate and external. On the other hand, however, the Dasein does not "transport" itself to the things by leaping out of a presumably subjective sphere over into a sphere of objects. But perhaps we have before us a "transposition" of a peculiar sort,