naturally according to it—so that 'time' even becomes identified with the sky.
World-time, moreover, is also 'more subjective' than any possible subject; for it is what first makes possible the Being of the factically existing Self—that Being which, as is now well understood, is the meaning of care. 'Time' is present-at-hand neither in the 'subject' nor in the 'Object', neither 'inside' nor 'outside'; and it 'is' 'earlier' than any subjectivity or Objectivity, because it presents the condition for the very possibility of this 'earlier'. Has it then any 'Being' ? And if not, is it then a mere phantom, or is it something that has 'more Being' ["seiender"] than any possible entity ? Any investigation [420] which goes further in the direction of questions such as these, will come up against the same 'boundary' which has already set itself up to our provisional discussion of the connection between truth and Being.vi In whatever way these questions may be answered in what follows—or in whatever way they may first of all get primordially formulated—we must first understand that temporality, as ecstatico-horizonal, temporalizes something like world-time, which constitutes a within-time-ness of the ready-to-hand and the present-at-hand. But in that case such entities can never be designated as 'temporal' in the strict sense. Like every entity with a character other than that of Dasein, they are non-temporal, whether they Really occur, arise and pass away, or subsist 'ideally'.
If world-time thus belongs to the temporalizing of temporality, then it can neither be volatilized 'subjectivistically' nor 'reified' by a vicious 'Objectification'. These two possibilities can be avoided with a clear insight-not just by wavering insecurely between them—only if we can understand how everyday Dasein conceives of 'time' theoretically in terms of an understanding of time in the way which is closest to it, and if we can also understand to what extent this conception of time and the prevalence of this concept obstruct the possibility of our understanding in terms of primordial time what is meant by this conception—that is, the possibility of understanding it as temporality. The everyday concern which gives itself time, finds 'the time' in those entities within-the-world which are encountered 'in time'. So if we are to cast any light on the genesis of the ordinary conception of time, we must take within-time-ness as our point of departure.
¶ 81. Within-time-ness and the Genesis of the Ordinary Conception of Time
How does something like 'time' first show itself for everyday circumspective concern? In what kind of concernful equipment-using dealings does it become explicitly accessible ? If it has been made public with the disclosedness of the world, if it has always been already a matter of concern with the discoveredness of entities within-the-world—a discoveredness which belongs to the world's disclosedness—and if it has been