Temporalization is the free oscillation of the whole of primordial temporality; time reaches and contracts itself. (And only because of momentum is there throw, facticity, thrownness; and only because of oscillation is there projection. Cf. the problem of time and being referred to in Being and Time.)
It is therefore essential, in first defining the unity of temporality, to eliminate the notion of anything thing-like, present on hand, which is between, as it were, having-been-ness and the future. Nor should one smuggle in any sort of personal center, an I-nucleus, but the essence of time lies in the ecstatic unitary oscillation. The unity of horizon belongs to this peculiar unity of time.
Regarding 2. What do we mean by the horizonal character of the ecstases? We understand "horizon" to be the circumference of the field of vision. But horizon, from ὁρίζειν, is not at all primarily related to looking and intuiting, but by itself means simply that which delimits, encloses, the enclosure. And the ecstases are, of course, not an awareness of, not a consciousness, and even less a looking.
Now we say each ecstasis encloses itself and does so precisely as ἔκστασις. One could believe the converse to be the case, that being-carried-away is the very leap over every barrier. Certainly there is, on its own, nothing determinate in expectance itself; it is not able to decide for itself, and certainly never unambiguously, what, on its basis, can be expected and how it can be expected. But the being-carried-away as such nonetheless provides something, just something futural as such, futurity as such, i.e., possibility pure and simple. Of itself the ecstasis does not produce a definite possible, but it does produce the horizon of possibility in general, within which a definite possible can be expected. We must keep in mind, however, that the ecstasis surpasses every being and the horizon is not located, say, in the sphere of the subject. Hence this horizon is also nowhere, since it presents no determinate being: it is neither spatially nor temporally located, in the usual sense. It "is" not as such, but it temporalizes itself. The horizon manifests itself in and with the ecstasis; it is its ecstema (formed analogically as, say, σύστημα is to σύστασις or σύνθημα to σύνθεσις). And, corresponding to the unity of ecstases in their temporalization, the unity of horizons is a primordial unity.
This ecstematic unity of the horizon of temporality is nothing other than the temporal condition for the possibility of world and of world's essential belonging to transcendence. For transcendence has its possibility in the unity of ecstatic momentum. This oscillation of the self-temporalizing ecstases is, as such, the