understood only in the sense of a non-committal formal indicator, indicating something which may perhaps reveal itself as its 'opposite' in some particular phenomenal context of Being. In that case, the 'not- I' is by no means tantamount to an entity which essentially lacks 'I-hood' ["Ichheit"], but is rather a definite kind of Being which the 'I' itself possesses, such as having lost itself [Selbstverlorenheit].
Yet even the positive Interpretation of Dasein which we have so far given, already forbids us to start with the formal givenness of the "I", if our purpose is to answer the question of the "who" in a way which is phenomenally adequate. In clarifying Being-in-the-world we have shown that a bare subject without a world never 'is' proximally, nor is it ever given. And so in the end an isolated "I" without Others is just as far from being proximally given.i If, however, 'the Others' already are there with us [mit dasind] in Being-in-the-world, and if this is ascertained phenomenally, even this should not mislead us into supposing that the ontological structure of what is thus 'given' is obvious, requiring no investigation. Our task is to make visible phenomenally the species to which this Dasein-with in closest everydayness belongs, and to Interpret it in a way which is ontologically appropriate.
Just as the ontical obviousness of the Being-in-itself of entities withinthe- world misleads us into the conviction that the meaning of this Being is obvious ontologically, and makes us overlook the phenomenon of the world, the ontical obviousness of the fact that Dasein is in each case mine, also hides the possibility that the ontological problematic which belongs to it has been led astray. Proximally the "who" of Dasein is not only a problem ontologically; even ontically it remains concealed.
But does this mean that there are no clues whatever for answering the question of the "who" by way of existential analysis? Certainly not. Of the ways in which we formally indicated the constitution of Dasein's Being in Sections 9 and 12 above, the one we have been discussing does not, of course, function so well as such a clue as does the one according to which Dasein's 'Essence' is grounded in its existence.1 If the 'I' is an Essential characteristic of Dasein, then it is one which must be Interpreted existentially. In that case the "Who?" is to be answered only by exhibiting phenomenally a definite kind of Being which Dasein possesses. If in each case Dasein is its Self only in existing, then the constancy of the Self no less than the
1 'as such a clue': here we read 'als solcher', following the later editions. The earliest editions have 'als solche', which has been corrected in the list of errata.
"Essence": while we ordinarily use 'essence' and 'essential' to translate 'Wesen' and 'wesenhaft', we shall use 'Essence' and 'Essential' (with initial capitals) to translate the presumably synonymous but far less frequent 'Essenz' and 'essentiell'.
The two 'formal indications' to which Heidegger refers are to be found on H. 42 above.