I: To illustrate by what we were just talking of ...
J: You said that language is the fundamental trait in human nature's hermeneutic relation to the two-fold of presence and present beings. To that remark I at once intended to make a few observations; but I shall do so only after you have shown just what we have failed to think. of in that context.
I: I mean the word "relation." We think of it in the sense of a relationship. What we know in that way we can identify in an empty, formal sense, and employ like a mathematical notation. Think of the procedure of logistics. But in the phrase, "man stands in hermeneutical relation to the twofold," we may hear the word "relation" also in a wholly different way. In fact, we must, if we give thought to what was said. Presumably, we must and can do so not right away but in good time, after long reflection.
J: Then it will do no harm if for the time being we understand "relation" in the customary sense of relationship.
I: True—but it is inadequate from the start, assuming that this word "relation" is to become a mainstay of our statement.
We say "correlation" also when talking about the supply and demand of commodities. 1l man is in a hermeneutical relation, however, that means that he is precisely not a commodity. But the word "relation" does want to say that man, in his very being, is in demand, is needed, that he, as the being he is, belongs within a needfulness which claims him.
J: In what sense?
I: Hermeneutically—that is to say, with respect to bringing tidings, with respect to preserving a message.
J: Man stands "in relation" then says the same as: Man is really as man when needed and used by ...
I: ... what calls on man to preserve the two-fold ...