353 II. IV
Being and Time

has "basically" "overcome" everydayness existentielly. "For the most part" signifies the way in which Dasein shows itself for everyone "as a rule," but not always.

Everydayness means the How in accordance with which Dasein "lives its day," whether in all of its modes of behavior or only in certain ways prefigured by being-with-one-another. Furthermore, being comfortable with what is customary belongs to this How, even [371] if habit forces us to confront what is burdensome and "disagreeable." The tomorrow that everyday taking care waits for is the "eternal yesterday." The monotony of everydayness takes whatever the day happens to bring as variety. Everydayness determines Dasein even when it has not chosen the they as its "hero."

But these manifold qualities of everydayness by no means characterize it as the mere "aspect" that Dasein proffers when "one" "looks at" the things human beings do. Everydayness is a way to be—to which, of course, public manifestness belongs. But as a way of its own existing, everydayness is indeed more or less familiar to each and every "individual" Dasein through the attunement of the pallid lack of mood. Dasein can "suffer" dully from everydayness, sink into its dullness, and evade it by looking for new ways in which its dispersion in its affairs may be further dispersed. But existence can also master the everyday in the Moment, and of course often only "for the moment," but it can never extinguish it.

What is ontically so familiar in the factical interpretedness of Dasein that we do not even pay any attention to it, hides in itself enigma upon enigma existentially and ontologically. The "natural" horizon for starting the existential analytic of Dasein is only seemingly obvious.

But, after our earlier interpretation of temporality, are we in a more fruitful position with regard to the existential delimitation of the structure of everydayness? Or does this confusing phenomenon precisely make evident what is insufficient about our explication of temporality up to now? Have we not been constantly immobilizing Dasein in certain positions and situations, while "consistently" disregarding the fact that, in moving from day to day, it stretches itself along "temporally" in the succession of its days? The monotony, the habit, the "like yesterday, so today and tomorrow," and the "for the most part" cannot be grasped without recourse to the "temporal" stretching along of Dasein.

And is it not also a fact of existing Dasein that, passing its time, it takes "time" daily into account and regulates the "calculation" astronomically and with the calendar? Only if we bring the everyday "occurrence" of Dasein and the heedful calculation of "time" in this occurrence into the interpretation of the temporality of Dasein, will our orientation become comprehensive enough to enable us to make the


Martin Heidegger (GA 2) Being & Time (S&S)