“ws Ms ‘We must, of course, guard agaist a misunderstanding of the cexprenion “ight” Ie comesponds (othe dearednesscharactesang the ‘BEiowednem stahe there “Seing” not only does not mean pereesing ‘rth the boy ees, neither does it mean the pre, nonsensory percep Ton of something objectively present nls objective presence. The only pecliaity of ecg wich we eam fr he exitenl meaning of ght {he fact that let the beings accnible to it be encountered in them Selves without being concealed. Ofcourse very “sense” does this within {er gensine realm of discovery. Bu the tadtion of pflosopy has been [pinay oriented fom dhe very begining toward" seeing” asthe mode Tracces to beings and fo beng. To preserve the connection, one can oxmalz sight an secng tothe point of gaining niveral term which ‘Guracterges every acces ae acess whatsoever to belngs and to being, By showing how all sight primary based on understanding the crcumapection of taking care of things is understanding 3 common se [Vartndghit-we have taken avay from pure intion is prioity ‘which noetically corresponds to the trdidonal ontological priority of Uhjentive presence. Tneuon” and "dought™ are both already remote Gaisauves of understanding. Even the phenomenological inition of ‘ences s based on existential understanding, We can decide about {ir Kind of seeing only when we have gained the expt concepts of being and te structure of being, which only phenomena in the Phe nomenologial sense can become. “The disclowedness of the therein understandings sel mode of tne poteiialtyotbeing of Dasein. Inthe projectednes ofits being \ipon the fordhesake which together with that upon sgnifleance (orl) les the daclosednes of belngin general! An understanding of eng arent anpatd in the projecting upon possibiites. Being i rendeatood in de projet, but ot ontlogially grasped. Beings which hve the Hind uf being ofthe esemtal projec of beingimtheworld have rhe constituent of thee being the understanding of being, What we ‘Sorted cater dogmatically ow denonstated in terms ofthe cote tuton ofthe being in which Dasein, as understanding ie there tn ‘cordance wih helms ofthis whole inguiy, a satslactory clafca ion ofthe existential meaning ofthis understanding of being can only be tained on te bai of the temporal interpretation of being. “Rr existential, atanement and wnderstanding characterize the primordial dscosediess of beingithe word. In te mode of “being famed” Dasela “see posablties i terms of which is Tn the pro- — ste re eee sees ecems Seger Seyi ie Beingand Tine 130 Jetvediclosure of such posible, it always already attuned, The project ofits ownmost potently of being ls delivered over tothe fact. 6f thrownnes into the there. Widh the explleation ofthe existential Constttion of the Being ofthe there i the sense of thrown project, Goes not the being of Dascin become sll more nyatrious? Indeed. We ‘st fist let the fll mpsteriousnes of this being emerge, oly tobe able to get stranded ina enine wayin ts “rolution” and to raise the ‘uestion anew ofthe beng of thrown projecting being inthe word Tm order osulfcenty bring even only the every mode of beng of auuned understanding phenomenally to view, concrete develop, tment of these existential i necessary. 32 Understanding end ntepttion As understanding, Dascin projects its being upon possibilities. This eng ‘eard puis hat understands ee a poentaly for beng becase ‘ofthe way these disclosed posses come back to Dascin, The projet ‘undersianding has sow posibity of development. We skal all the ‘evelopment of understanding tatrpreaton. In interpretation under Standing appropriates what thas understood in an understanding way. In interpretation understanding docs not become something diferent, ‘bu rater ielt. Interpretation is existential based in understanding, and not the other way around. Interpretation isnot the acknowed ‘ment of what hasbeen understood, but rather the development of pos sibilies projected in understanding. In accordance withthe train of {hese preparatory analyses of everyday Dasein we shall pursue the pte ‘nomenon of interpretation inthe understanding af the world that in Imauthenu understanding in he mode of ts genninencss, In terms of thesgiicance of whats dsdosed ia understanding the world the being of taking care of what iat hand eae to understand What the relevance can be with what ie actualy encountered, Cicum- Specton discovers, that the wold which has ready been understood is Interpreted. What sat hand comes xpi before ight at ness Allpreparing arranging, sting righ improvng rounding out, occur in sucha Way that things at hand for cueamapection ae interpreted in their Invordert and are taken care of according tothe interpretednest wl has become vibe, What hs been ccumepecy interpreted with regard to its inorderso as such, what as been expely understood, has the Struct of something a something The Grcomapecy interpretive awe to te crcmspect question of what hsp tng tad rn i Is for». Saying what is for snot imply naming something, bt what Ik mamed is understood as Ut ar which what sin question ito be taken What is disdored in understanding, what understood rabeaye aed accesible i such away dat in is "a8 what” ean be expe dln 0Mo Bengand Tine w ee eee sete enon cae eas Scere ataseaeorhehecos pg pa a ha ive rch cc a ea ent eg cere iat ccearit se ere ta ee a rats eg way pert ie ah aed Sey teeter Se eer ena erate ge ae ener meen ogee ete ger raat ere ceatpratnaenetersncoamat ete pace et ing ea i oe ero ark Sinner magtt oe atoescas ae fete tant weft wagecen eae sae cr oe eee ae ee seta mee Repeat a eee mm ete aie Seite Be erent eg rane ata ata oD “te would be a misunderstanding ofthe specifi dscosive sie a emit ne ers Siegen rrceht sore nt ay “Thana aweyy reaayoncsood interns tty ae age signe merece Se ea ar tora iaptttnetre na arepmen Sacer cen ee Se rmrenee Ek sommes sear ratenan tts weer ete w Bengt Time Yet Something is understod but sil vel, Becomes unvleby am act of appropriation snd thisis lays done under the guldance of perspective ‘which ies that with tegard to which wha hasbeen understood bo be interpreted. The interpretation is grounded in a foenight that “approaches” what has ben taken i forehaving with a definite inter pretation in view. What i held inthe forehavng and understood in 3 “foreseeing” view becomes comprehensible through the interpretation ‘The interpretation ean draw the conceptual belonging to the beings 0 bbe interpreted from these themselves or ele fore them into concep to which beings are opposed in accordance with their Kind of beng. The Interpretation has always already decided, aly or poison, pon a definite conceptual itis grounded ina foeconstion. ‘The interpretation of something as something ls essentially sounded in forehaving, foresight, and foreconception. Interpret tion is never a presuppositioness grasping of something previously sive. When the partir concretion of the interpretation nthe sense ‘fexact text interpretation likes to appeal to what is ther what sin tally “there” is nothing elie than the sefevident, undisputed prejudice ofthe interpreter which is necessarily there in eich point of departure ofthe interpretation a whats alveady “posted” with interpretation as such, that i, pregiven wi forehavng, foresight ore-coneepion How ae we to conceive the character of thi fore" Have we dome this when we formally sy “arin”? Why is this stare appropriate to ‘derstanding which we have characterized a fondamental existential ff Dascin? How isthe suueture ofthe "as" whlch belongs to what i Imerpreted as such related tothe forestucture? Ths phenomenon i ‘bviouly nt tobe dslved “into pieces" But a por anal to berated out? Should we accept sch phenomena s“inalities"? Then the question would remain, why? Or do the forestructure of under standing and the astructure of interpretation show an existential onte- logical connection withthe phenomenon of project? And does his phe ‘nomenon refer back a primordial consituon of being of Das? Before answering these question for which the preparation up to this points mot at all fcen we meting whether what s vibe the forestrucure of understanding andl qua the astuctre of tterre tation doesnot ise already represent aunty phenomenon whih s used copiously in philosophical problematic, though what Is wed #0 universally fal short ofthe primordia of ontalogelexplation, In the projecting of understanding, being are disclosed in thelr possi. The characte of posit aways correspond tothe kind of being ofthe beings undersigod. Ianerwortl being: in encral are pr ete toward the Worl, that toward totaty of ican in whose Feferenial relations taking care, as being inthe word, ha footed sl ftom the beginning. When with Oe being of Dasein nnerwcny Beings BIise Being ond Time Ww are done that ave ce toe ideo we at hy ave meanng But std speaking whats understood no the mea Tey beng or being. Meanings tat wherein de itelligiity of ‘ching main Iselt What can be atclated in cosa that ‘cate we call meaning. The comp of meaning inclades the formal Tewotk of war necor belongs fo wat nerpreson that under ‘nd articutes Meeing traced ly foraving foresight, and fore Tesi the pon ah fhe re lr of which smathing become ‘mug ar onting Since understanding and interpretation constite ihe essential constation ofthe being of the there, aeaning rust be (Macro as the forme, existential framework of the dtlosednes cloning to understanding Meaning is an extent of Dasei, not 2 pace ch is atached fo Beings, which is “behind” ther oF fost opkoicre aya veal between Only Dasein "hat meaning in at the ducosednes of beinginshe world can be “Tliled® through the ‘ing dncoverable init Phu only Dosin con be manning or meaning. Fhe means that Hs own being andthe beings ciconed with that ‘ingen be appropriated in understanding or they canbe confined to {ncomprehensiiy : TP adhere fo this interpretation of the concept of "meaning that i in principle ontological eastental, all Beings whose mode of Pa ute Basein must be understood as wnmeaninghil 38 ete Maha of meaning as such, “Unmeaningal does not mean here a ae judgmens but expres an ontologial determination. And ont Thar ckmonig cob ard Obeetely present things encoun (Gre in Dasen en, soto speak fun aginst its beng for example ‘roms of mature which break in on wand destroy ‘tnd when weak abot the meaning of eng, ou ng does not herome profound and does not brood on anyching which sande Tehind beng but quesdon lng te no fara i stands wii the Tllgty of Desei, The meaing of beng an never be contrasted Jai tings or win beng as the suppoting “ground” of beings Beate ‘ipods only accessible as meaning, even that meaning iss an Bye of meaningless. Ae dslsenes ofthe dere, understanding bvays concerns the nse of beinginshewoHl. In every understanding of wok, o> ence nalso understood and vice wersu Furthermore evry interpreta ‘fon operate wih the forestocture which we characterize Every iheepecaton whch sto conte rome understanding most lead) ascbendrsto tobe ttrpeted. Tac has alas alread Sci med onl inthe en of eae way of dering ves merctaion,mplloge interpretation. The later belong 0 ees tenic coguiton Sach cognition demands the igor of e Rampant Tine 8 demonstration giving reasons. Seti proot must not lea ‘uppote what aah found. rf nepetaton alee ead has {oloperate within whats anderstood and mura ea rom ts, how Should it then predce sinters without going in cele expe {aly when the prespposed underanding til oper nthe common Inowiedgeof human being snd world? Bu according to the manele menay tls o log, he da cra tan te bases storia interpretation str banned pri fom te realm of crt knowledge I the fact of the dle in understandings nou remove i taiography muse content ma le sri pombe ef owe Te ‘spermitied more or lento replace th le wth the “opal sii ci of objec wl be more se of oe mere cording tothe open ofthe hitregrphr themselves ite cle Could be avuded and if thre were the hope for once of creating i> tcriogaphy which ss independent ofthe tandpea te bre the nowedge of ature sopposed tobe Buttes oni in hice ni fr ways ec el” tht iam ince imperfection so minded ndertonding om the ron up. Iti not 8 mater asating understanding ad Interpretation oa pau ideal of knowlege wc lf oly 2 degeneration of siesta wh a aed im the lem fpping whats objecvey present in exe unlatelghity. The foliiment of the fendamental conditions of possible intrpreation ‘ate es not misting interpretation forced wth ear he ‘Sst conditions oft being done Whats deve not get out of the lee, bt to get in tin te right way. This ce of undesaning nota dle in which any random hind of knowledge operates, but ks {ather the expression of the exe ores of Dosen uel The ‘itde mut ot be degraded teen not re oa ltd one A postive poy of te most primer Lnowledge i hidden it hich, howe on gasped it' enine way when irpreation as Understood tat ts st constant, and at a snot toe Torch, Tovesght and forecencepton he en tity chance ideas and pope Tar conceptions, bt to guaantes the cet heme by developing these in terms ofthe things themes: Because in secordance wii txstenial meaing andes the poset for beng of Daan isl the antlogealprenspostions of hatrcgaphical knowledge transcend in principle he ide of ig of the mos nt scence, Mas ‘nas not more cae tan Hr. but oly rower wh ear o theseope of the extent foundations dential “The “ee” in understanding belong othe race of meaning and this phenomenon i rooted nthe extent conson of De ‘cin In interpretive understanding Begs which» begin thew 18