This being as Dasein; at first just a name for the questioners—who need to understand themselves as such in the understanding-of-Being—to [21] question-through. Understanding Da-sein from out of the Being-question; certainly; but as the Being-question!
To this end, the inadequate separation between beings that have interrogative priority and those that stand out as “exemplary” beings—the two are not the same. And, intentionally, “beyng” should not be decisively read-off of Dasein, and thereby made “subjective,” by anyone!
But there is an obscurity that has not been remedied here, especially since the temporality of Dasein indicates it, namely that Being is understood “from” temporality—indeed that meaning is understood from the horizon of time, but time is indeed ek-static.
| The multiple meanings of Dasein
A provisional clarification—not the pull and progress of the grounding projection.
See manuscript Dasein, [in GA 73].
See what is essential below, Running Comments on I, Chapter 5, p. 130 ff.
See Contributions, Da-sein as the original leap of the (event), [in GA 65].
See Of the Event [GA 65].
See Übungen 1937/1938 Die metaphysischen Grundstellungen, p. 1 ff. [GA 88].
| Da-sein (its multiple meanings)
(see Running Comments p. 16; p. 29 ff.)
In Being and Time, this word is used in four different ways as a name for that which really cannot be overcome, that is, for that which, as the grounding center, is sought, encircled, and forcefully misinterpreted. The essential cause of this is a lack of clarity about the basic attitude in the approach: it is not a description of the conditions of possibility, but rather a projecting, extending leap-into the ground of the human being as the protector of the truth of beyng. The four meanings are delimited in advance against a fifth (the common one—also used by Kant: Dasein = being-present-at-hand, having-arrived, occurring) ([22] but see Being and Time p. 118!). By contrast, on the whole in Being and Time Dasein is the word for the being that we in each case are—the human “subject”—but with the precise intention of eliminating this “subject” in its subjectivity; this intention purports to be an improvement and a modification of previous views, on the way toward a “more suitable” investigation. In truth, however, it is a leap—a completely different use and approach—indeed, it is that which can be grounded only as something that is sprung-open by leaping-in. (The leap-target of the Being-question