The three basic deficiencies (see 18 c, 18 e, f) and errors (see 29) are pervasive (here is each corresponding fallacy):
1. the phenomenological deception, as if it were exhibiting the given
2. the fundamental-ontological aim—the question of the possibility of the understanding-of-Being, as if in this way we could get to the bottom of things!
3. the existentiell intention, as if in this way the original essence is encountered as Da-sein (see 18a).
| The playing-forth of the existentiell
What is wanted, and what is above and beyond anything like “I”-consciousness, is the actualized-primordially-active human being, but in its activity, the likewise relational and worried human being (equated with Dasein but in this way the “essence” of Dasein and the springing open are not achieved).
What, among other things, is the primordial historical aspect of Da-sein as the happening of Being {Seinsgeschehnis}?—But this cannot be achieved if it is not metaphysical from the ground up.
Neutralizing the existentiell and the existential—instead of the meta-physical, i.e., bringing the second inception to fruition, and for the Being-question it is only a matter of experiencing this ground.
An essential consequence of existentiell questioning is the setting-forth of “resoluteness” as “the most primordial truth” p. 221; see Running Comments. The existentiell, however, leads to the one-sided emphasis on “possibility” (p. 143/44, see Running Comments)—the danger of dissolving everything into [Dasein’s] potentiality for Being its self—as was indeed avoided by Jaspers—and nevertheless this was too short! in spite of resoluteness (compare to § 45 and § 63! Division II). Also, the effort to point the ekstatic toward the future is thereby demanded, but this path is on the wrong track—despite “death” and “conscience.”
Instead, creatively install the Da and Da-sein into the fissure! But if certain conditions are grasped correctly, being human itself—care—needs to be [42] conceived differently, from history and as Dasein on the basis of the (event).
| In Being and Time, genuinely achieve being human with the existentiell, and indeed as temporality.
The existentiell, however, is not determined in an existentiell-Christian manner—not as that into which everything—“world” and “God”—dissolves (but see p. 302); rather, it is determined metaphysically, from out of the understanding-of-Being-question/the Temporality-question. To be sure, the preliminary question is to be posed here about the fundamental experience of this projection! Is this fundamental experience existentiell?! How can that be?! In Being and Time, this is not clearly and specifically accomplished at all—it is the ground that is left in the dark and which is poorly covered over by the existentiell effort!