have we found it at all? Have we ever set ourselves to search for this and establish its character? We avail ourselves of it 'at any time' without having taken it over explicitly, and we constantly make use of it even though we do not always make utterances about it. Even in the most trivial, offhand kind of everyday talk ('It's cold', for instance) we also have in mind a 'now that .. .'. Why is it that when Dasein addresses itself to the objects of its concern, it also expresses a 'now that .. .', a 'then, when ...', or an 'on that former occasion, when ...', even though it does so mostly without uttering it? First, because in addressing itself to something interpretatively, it expresses itself too; that is to say, it expresses its Being alongside the ready-to-hand-a Being which understands circumspectively and which uncovers the ready-to-hand and lets it be encountered. And secondly, because this very addressing and discussing which interprets itself also-is based upon a making-present and is possible only as such.1
The making-present which awaits and retains, interprets itself. And this in turn is possible only because, as something which in itself is ecstatically open, it has in each case been disclosed to itself already and can be Articulated in the kind of interpretation which is accompanied by understanding and discourse. Because temporality is ecstatico-horizonally constitutive for the clearedness of the "there", temporality is always primordially interpretable in the "there" and is accordingly familiar to us. The making-present which interprets itself-in other words, that which has been interpreted and is addressed in the 'now'-is what we call 'time'. This simply makes known to us that temporality-which, as ecstatically open, is recognizable-is familiar, proximally and for the most part, only as interpreted in this concernful manner.1 But while time is 'immediately' intelligible and recognizable, this does not preclude the possibility that primordial temporality as such may remain unknown and unconceived, and that this is also the case with the source of the time which has been expressed-a source which temporalizes itself in that temporality.
The fact that the structure of datability belongs essentially to what has been interpreted with the 'now', the 'then', and the 'on that former occasion', becomes the most elemental proof that what has thus been interpreted has originated in the temporality which interprets itself. When we say 'now', we always understand a 'now that so and
1 'Das sich auslegende Gegenäartigen, das heisst das im "jetzt" angesprochene Ausgelegte nennen wir "Zeit". Darin bekundet sich lediglich, dass die Zeitlichkeit als ekstatisch offene kenntlich, zunachst und zumeist nur in dieser besorgenden Ausgelegtheit bekannt ist.' The older editions have 'ausgesprochene' ('expressed') rather than 'angesprochene' ('addressed'); the comma after 'Zeitlichkeit' is missing, and the particle 'ja' appears just before 'zunächst'.