§52 [322-24]

potentiality for granting, indeed essentially a potentiality for granting transposedness, connected in turn with the necessary refusal of any going along with. Only where there is a having do we find a not-having. And not-having in being able to have is precisely deprivation, is poverty. Thus the transposability of man into the animal, which again is not a going along with, is grounded in the essence of the animal. And it is this essence which we have attempted to capture with our thesis concerning the animal's poverty in world. To summarize: the animal intrinsically displays a sphere of transposability, and does so in such a way that man (to whose Dasein a being transposed belongs) already finds himself transposed into the animal in a certain manner. The animal displays a sphere of transposability or, more precisely, the animal itself is this sphere, one which nonetheless refuses any going along with. The animal has a sphere of potential transposability and yet it does not necessarily have what we call world. In contrast with the stone, the animal in any case does possess the possibility of transposability, but it does not allow the possibility of self-transposition in the sense in which this transpires between one human being and another. The animal both has something and does not have something, i.e., it is deprived of something. We express this by saying that the animal is poor in world and that it is fundamentally deprived of world.

What is this poverty in world of the animal? Even after carefully determining what it means to be deprived of something, we still do not possess an adequate answer. Why not? Because we cannot simply conjure up the essence of poverty in world from out of the formal concept of deprivation. We can grasp this poverty only if we first know what world is. Only then are we in a position to say what it is that the animal is deprived of, and thus to say what this poverty in world implies. First of all we must pursue the concept of world by examining the essence of man and the world-forming character we have claimed for him: we must first examine the positive moment, then the negative moment and finally the lack.

This path of approach is so natural and obvious that we might well wonder why we did not adopt it at the very beginning. In fact, we shall not adopt it even now. This is not through any willfulness on our part but rather because we are attempting to approach the essence of poverty in world by clarifying animality itself. We shall leave aside the question as to whether our tacit orientation toward man still plays a role here and what sort of role that is.

A properly primordial insight into the kind of essence pertaining to the animal is quite indispensable if we are to accomplish our task, and this for the following reason. Assuming that we could clarify the essence of world with regard to the world-formation of man, assuming that we could then satisfy ourselves as to what it means to be deprived of world simply by inferring this-none of this could help us reach our goal unless we have already shown with regard to the essence of animality that the animal is