these questions we must first restrict ourselves to clarifying the analytic of Dasein, as the questions themselves demand.
The interpretation of the Self belongs to Dasein's Being. In the circumspective-concernful discovering of the 'world', concern gets sighted too. Dasein always understands itself factically in definite existentiell possibilities, even if its projects stem only from the common sense of the "they". Whether explicitly or not, whether appropriately or not, existence is somehow understood too. There are some things which every ontical understanding 'includes', even if these are only pre-ontological—that is to say, not conceived theoretically or thematically. Every ontologically explicit question about Dasein's Being has had the way already prepared for it by the kind of Being which Dasein has.
Yet where are we to find out what makes up the 'authentic' existence of Dasein ? Unless we have an existentiell understanding, all analysis of existentiality will remain groundless. Is it not the case that underlying our Interpretation of the authenticity and totality of Dasein, there is an ontical way of taking existence which may be possible but need not be binding for everyone ? Existential Interpretation will never seek to take over any authoritarian pronouncement as to those things which, from an existentiell point of view, are possible or binding. But must it not justify itself in regard to those existentiell possibilities with which it gives ontological Interpretation its ontical basis ? If the Being of Dasein is essentially potentiality-for-Being, if it is Being-free for its ownmost possibilities, and if, in every case, it exists only in freedom for these possibilities or in lack of freedom for them, can ontological Interpretation do anything else than base itself on ontical possibilities—ways of potentiality-for-Being—and project these possibilities upon their ontological possibility? And if, for the most part, Dasein interprets itself in terms of its lostness in concerning itself with the 'world', does not the appropriate way of disclosure for such an entity lie in determining the ontico-existentiell possibilities (and doing so in the manner which we have achieved by following the opposite [313] course) and then providing an existential analysis grounded upon these possibilities? In that case, will not the violence of this projection amount to freeing Dasein's undisguised phenomenal content?
It may be that our method demands this 'violent' presentation of possibilities of existence, but can such a presentation be taken out of the province of our free discretion? If the analytic makes anticipatory resoluteness basic as a potentiality-for-Being which, in an existentiell manner, is authentic—a possibility to which Dasein itself summons us from the very basis of its existence—then is this possibility just one which is left to our discretion? Has that way-of-Being in accordance with which Dasein's