interpretation of time maintains itself by looking solely in the direction of concernful common sense, and understands only what 'shows' itself within the common-sense horizon, these structures must escape it. That which gets counted when one measures time concernfully, the "now", gets co-understood in one's concern with the present-at-hand and the ready-to-hand. Now so far as this concern with time comes back to the time itself which has been co-understood, and in so far as it 'considers' that time, it sees the "nows" (which indeed are also somehow 'there') within the horizon of that understanding-of-Being by which this concern is itself constantly guided.ix [423] Thus the "nows" are in a certain manner co-present-at-hand: that is, entities are encountered, and so too is the "now". Although it is not said explicitly that the "nows" are present-at-hand in the same way as Things, they still get 'seen' ontologically within the horizon of the idea of presence-at-hand. The "nows" pass away, and those which have passed away make up the past. The "nows" come along, and those which are coming along define the 'future'. The ordinary interpretation of world-time as now-time never avails itself of the horizon by which such things as world, significance, and datability can be made accessible. These structures necessarily remain covered up, all the more so because this covering-up is reinforced by the way in which the ordinary interpretation develops its characterization of time conceptually.
The sequence of "nows" is taken as something that is somehow present-at-hand, for it even moves 'into time'.1 We say : 'In every "now" is now ; in every "now" it is already vanishing.' In every "now" the "now" is now and therefore it constantly has presence as something selfsame, even though in every "now" another may be vanishing as it comes along.2 Yet as this thing which changes, it simultaneously shows its own constant presence {ständige Anwesenheit}. Thus even Plato, who directed his glance in this manner at time as a sequence of "nows" arising and passing away, had to call time "the image of eternity": εἰκὼ δ' ἐπενόει κινητόν τινα αἰῶνος ποιῆσαι, καὶ διακοσμῶν ἅμα οὺρανὸν ποιει μένοντος αἰῶνοςἐν ἑνὶ κατ' ἀριθμὸν ἰοῦσαν ἀιώνιον εἰκόνα, τουτον δὴ χρόνον ὠνομᾴκαμεν.x
The sequence of "nows" is uninterrupted and has no gaps. No matter how 'far' we proceed in 'dividing up' the "now", it is always now. The continuity3 of time is seen within the horizon of something which is indissolubly
1 '... denn sie rückt selbst "in die Zeit".'
2 'In jedem Jetzt ist das Jetzt Jetzt, mithin ständig als Selbiges anwesend, mag auch in jedem Jetztje ein anderes ankommend verschwinden.'
3 'Stetigkeit'. In the earlier editions this appears as 'Stätigkeit' — a spelling which we find on H. 390 f. and 398 in both earlier and later editions. It is not clear how seriously this 'correction' is to be taken here; but we have decided, with some hesitation, to translate 'Stätigkeit' as 'steadiness', and 'stetig' and 'Stetigkeit' as 'continuous' and 'continuity' respectively, saving 'Continuous' and 'Continuity' for 'kontinuierlich' and 'Kontinuität'.