One of the problems that bothered me was that [Heidegger's] ontology of human being was one-legged. You cannot, I argued, have a ‘being-there’ without also a ‘being-here’ for ‘there’ to be defined by. So Da-sein requires a complementary Hier-sein, as recto requires verso or as a view ‘out there’ requires a viewpoint ‘here’.

The “Da,” as a concept understood with respect to the history of beyng, does not have a directional character according to which it is distinguished from the “over there” (here and there [da und dort]). Even the “there” is a Da or, more precisely, is in the Da (Da ≠ ibi and ubi).

...

The Da signifies the appropriated open realm—the appropriated clearing of being.

Pp. 180-1

¶ 9:05 PM