With the insight into Being as presence, however, the determinative relation of Being to Dasein has not been recognized or even clarified for a long time. Instead of suddenly asking about it, the question turned much more toward making possible the thrown projection of presence from out of the preview into “time.” The entanglement remained that indeed the question about the objectification of objects, which was posed “transcendentally” (in the conventional sense of “transcendental”), was avoided but that it then snuck right in to the Being-question, in the form of the question about the condition of the possibility—not of the knowledge of beings—but rather of the understanding of Being as Being. Thereby, the question presented itself, whether time as the horizon of the projection of presence determines itself out of and through the temporality of Da-sein or whether, conversely, this time, as time, receives its determination out of “time” as the realm of the projection of presence. From out of this disturbing question a situation of thinking arose in which this thinking saw itself placed before a state of affairs that demanded the turn of thinking. But this [403] was not the matter of a momentary act that resolves itself in an “About face!”—the turn became the occasion for a lengthy journey.
What has just been said should not awaken the impression that in the years 1925/1926, during the working out of Being and Time, I knew all of this as clearly as I am now presenting it.
But whoever is underway in an essential and necessary sense knows that the view opening up in front of him on the path to be traveled changes constantly, just like the view of the path he has already traveled, especially when this journey is not meant to be personal-biographical but rather is experienced in the historicality of Dasein. (In contrast to that, see Husserl’s “Postscript” to Ideas I, 1930, p. 560 [12]). If one considers that thrownness co-determines and pre-determines the projecting, and if one considers that the projection of Being as Being has to do with the opening up of presence as presence and that projecting does not mean positing, then in the course of this, it is still the case that the turn-around [Wendung] from Being and time to time and Being is indeed not already the turn itself; it is rather the state of thinking reached via the path of Being and Time, in which it sees itself brought before the necessity of the turn.
After the turn is made visible, however, and after it is clarified in a few respects, it looks to be so obvious that one might rather consider the “transcendental” path through Being and Time to be unnecessary. Whoever thinks this runs the danger of taking the thinking after the turn to be a speculative stroll, according to which one seemingly just writes poetry. Meanwhile, ἀλήθεια as such first becomes worthy of thought. But the binding nature of the corresponding thinking can only be examined when the matter that binds has been sufficiently displayed beforehand, whereby the task becomes the “logic” of this thinking as a meditation on language.