with sufficient Articulation to give sure guidance for working out the existentialia conceptually.
The way which we have so far pursued in the analytic of Dasein has led us to a concrete demonstration of the thesisv which was put forward just casually at the beginning—that the entity which in every case we ourselves are, is onto logically that which is farthest. The reason for this lies in care itself. Our Being alongside the things with which we concern ourselves most closely in the 'world'—a Being which is falling—guides the everyday way in which Dasein is interpreted, and covers up ontically Dasein's authentic Being, so that the ontology which is directed towards this entity is denied an appropriate basis. Therefore the primordial way in which this entity is presented as a phenomenon is anything but obvious, if even ontology proximally follows the course of the everyday interpretation of Dasein. The laying-bare of Dasein's primordial Being must rather be wrested from Dasein by following the opposite course from that taken by the falling ontico-ontological tendency of interpretation.
Not only in exhibiting the most elemental structures of Being-in-the-world, in delimiting the concept of the world, in clarifying the average "who" of this entity (the "who" which is closest to us—the they-self) , in Interpreting the 'there', but also, above all, in analysing care, death, conscience, and guilt—in all these ways we have shown how in Dasein itself concernful common sense has taken control of Dasein's potentiality-for-Being and the disclosure of that potentiality-that is to say, the closing of it off.
Dasein's kind of Being thus demands that any ontological Interpretation which sets itself the goal of exhibiting the phenomena in their primordiality, should capture the Being of this entity, in spite of this entity's own tendency to cover things up. Existential analysis, therefore, constantly has the character of doing violence [Gewaltsamkeit] , whether to the claims of the everyday interpretation, or to its complacency and its tranquillized obviousness. While indeed this characteristic is specially distinctive of the ontology of Dasein, it belongs properly to any Interpretation, because the understanding which develops in Interpretation has the structure of a projection. [312] But is not anything of this sort guided and regulated in a way of its own? Where are ontological projects to get the evidence that their 'findings' are phenomenally appropriate? Ontological Interpretation projects the entity presented to it upon the Being which is that entity's own, so as to conceptualize it with regard to its structure. Where are the signposts to direct the projection, so that Being will be reached at all? And what it the entity which becomes the theme of the existential analytic, hides the Being that belongs to it, and does so in its very way of being? To answer