Circumspective making-present, however, is a phenomenon with more than one kind of foundation. In the first instance, it always belongs to a full ecstatical unity of temporality. It is grounded in a retention of that context of equipment with which Dasein concerns itself in awaiting a possibility. That which has already been laid open in awaiting and retaining is brought closer by one's deliberative making-present or envisaging.1 But if deliberation is to be able to operate in the scheme of the 'if—then', concern must already have 'surveyed' a context of involvements and have an understanding of it. That which is considered with an 'if' must already be understood as something or other. This does not require that the understanding of equipment be expressed in a predication. The schema 'something as something' has already been sketched out beforehand in the structure of one's pre-predicative understanding. The as-structure is grounded ontologically in the temporality of understanding. But on the other hand, only to the extent that Dasein, in awaiting some possibility (here this means a "towards-which"), has come back to a "towards-this" [360] (that is to say that it retains something ready-to-hand)—only to this extent can the making-present which belongs to this awaiting and retaining, start with what is thus retained, and bring it, in its character of having been assigned or referred to its "towards-which", explicitly closer. The deliberation which brings it close must, in the schema of making present, be in conformity with the kind of Being that belongs to what is to be brought close. The involvement-character of the ready-to-hand does not first get discovered by deliberation, but only gets brought close by it in such a manner as to let that in which something has an involvement, be seen circumspectively as this very thing.
The way the Present is rooted in the future and in having been, is the existential-temporal condition for the possibility that what has been projected in circumspective understanding can be brought closer in a making-present, and in such a way that the Present can thus conform itself to what is encountered within the horizon of awaiting and retaining; this means that it must interpret itself in the schema of the as-structure. We have thus answered the question we formulated earlier—the question of whether the as-structure has some existential-ontological connection with the phenomenon of projection.xxii Like understanding and interpretation in general, the 'as' is grounded in the ecstatico-horiz;onal unity of temporality. In our fundamental analysis of Being, and of course in connection with the Interpretation of the 'is' (which, as a copula, gives 'expression' to the addressing of something as something), we must again make the
1 'Das im gewärtigenden Behalten schon Aufgeschlossene bringt die überlegende Gegenwärtigung bzw. Vergegenwärtigung näher.'