off is by no means just a kind of ignorance factually subsisting; it is constitutive for Dasein's facticity. It is also determinative for the ecstatical character of the way existence has been abandoned to its own null basis.
Proximally, the "throw" of Dasein's Being-thrown into the world is one that does not authentically get "caught". The 'movement' which such a "throw" implies does not come to 'a stop' because Dasein now 'is there'. Dasein gets dragged along in thrownness; that is to say, as something which has been thrown into the world, it loses itself in the 'world' in its factical submission to that with which it is to concern itself. The Present, which makes up the existential meaning of "getting taken along", never arrives at any other ecstatical horizon of its own accord, unless it gets [349] brought back from its lostness by a resolution, so that both the current Situation and therewith the primordial 'limit-Situation' of Being-towards-death, will be disclosed as a moment of vision which has been held on to.
(d) The Temporality of Discoursexi
When the "there" has been completely disclosed, its disclosedness is constituted by understanding state-of-mind, and falling; and this disclosedness becomes Articulated by discourse. Thus discourse does not temporalize itself primarily in any definite ecstasis. Factically, however, discourse expresses itself for the most part in language, and speaks proximally in the way of addressing itself to the 'environment' by talking about things concernfully; because of this, making-present has, of course, a privileged constitutive function.
Tenses, like the other temporal phenomena of language—'aspects' and 'temporal stages' ["Zeitstufen"]—do not spring from the fact that discourse expresses itself 'also' about 'temporal' processes, processes encountered 'in time'. Nor does their basis lie in the fact that speaking runs its course 'in a psychical time'. Discourse in itself is temporal, since all talking about ..., of ..., or to ..., is grounded in the ecstatical unity of temporality. Aspects have their roots in the primordial temporality of concern, whether or not this concern relates itself to that which is within time. The problem of their existential-temporal structure cannot even be formulated with the help of the ordinary traditional conception of time, to which the science of language needs must have recourse.xii But because in any discourse one is talking about entities, even if not primarily and predominantly in the sense of theoretical assertion, the analysis of the temporal Constitution of discourse and the explication of the temporal characteristics of language-patterns can be tackled only if the problem of how Being and truth are connected in principle, is broached in the light of the problematic of temporality. We can then define even the ontological