What is the fundamental structure of this thought? It is brought-to-pass by the nature of man conceived as ek-sistence, i.e., as endowed with the prerogative, unique among beings, of an ecstatic open-ness Unto the lighting-process of Being. Ek-sistence thus understood may be called the There (Da) of Being, because it is that domain among beings where the lighting-process takes place. Since the There comes-to-pass in a being, this privileged being is the There-being (Dasein), and, conversely, There-being must he understood always as the There of Being among beings, nothing more.

To understand thought, then, we must first see more precisely the relation
ship between Being and its There. It is, in fact, a cor-relation. For on the one hand Being maintains a primacy over its There, throwing it forth and dominating it at all times, revealing itself and concealing itself according to its own nature. Yet on the other hand, Being needs its There in order to be itself (the coming-to-pass of non-concealment), for unless non-concealment comes-to-pass in a There that is found among beings, it does not come-to-pass at all. We understand in what sense, then, the There is “for the sake of” Being, the “shepherd,” the “watchman” of Being: Being is its unique concern (Sorge). To think Being will be to think the truth of Being in which There-being is ek-sistent.

Being discloses itself to and in its There, but since it is Being that holds the primacy, Being is conceived as sending itself (sich schickt) unto its There. We may speak of this self-sending of Being as proceeding from Being and call it a “self-emitting” or, if we may be permitted a neologism to designate a new concept, a “mittence” (Geschick) of Being. We may speak of it, too, as terminating in There and therefore call it a “com-mitting” or “com-mitment” (Schicksal) of There to its privileged destiny as the shepherd of Being. In any case, one thing is certain: intrinsic to the mittence of Being is a certain negativity, by reason of which Being withdraws even as it bestows itself, conceals itself even in its revealment. The reason is that even though Being reveals itself in revealing beings, it can never be seized for itself and by itself (since it is not a being), hence conceals itself in the very beings to which it gives rise. To think Being, then, will be to think it as a mittence, not only in its positivity but in its negativity.

Pp. 82-83

¶ 6:53 AM