As long as one understands being as presence as it was once understood, and is still (understood], one cannot understand technology and surely not the disclosive appropriating Event at all.
    The determination of what was designated in metaphysics as what is present [das Anwesende], the res, is [re]thought in the new interpretation of a thing (as presented in the lecture What Is a Thing?) from [the background of] the disclosive appropriating Event. In this interpretation of a thing, presence as the [metaphysical] determination of being is abandoned.
    The origin of the concept of the self is a very recent one. It is rooted in the Pietism of about 1700, when one spoke about the sinful and evil self and when the human being was thereby objectified [verdinglicht].
    A correction must be made in the section about “forgetting” in the Sicilian colloquia to the following lines: Because she is still totally with the man while departing. the purse as such is not present to her at all. Then the following should be deleted: “And therefore she allows it [the purse] to be left behind,” because she cannot leave it behind at all if it is not present.
    If I look at the woman’s behavior from outside, I look at the woman as an object moving from here to there, and I do not see her in her being-in-the-world. Going-home-to her parents is really not a going home, but a remaining-with the man.
    The ecstatic relationship (and that means the human being’s whole Da-sein) cannot be represented. As soon as I represent it, I have two objects, and I am outside the ecstatic relationship.
    Concealment is not the antithesis of consciousness but rather concealment belongs to the clearing. Freud simply did not see this clearing; otherwise, he would have succeeded in understanding the consciousness of children.

P. 182

¶ 9:05 AM