sustains and leads the path. Ultimately, even this “only” is never spoken; it first becomes comprehensible and it can only be overcome through that which has become something through it.
Establish the overcoming in this direction, wholly in itself—not in an egotistical way, but rather the other way around: toward that which would have to be done and which was not put right, toward that on which everything depends, if there is any “on which” at all.
This is the reason for the new path, which in its essence, i.e., according to its essential form, leads to the same result, but which must be shaped in such a way that the [174] overcoming can become more original and more essential. But that does not mean: dissolving everything into sheer movement; on the contrary, it is an historical expansion and not the preparation of a doctrine.
63. On the confrontation with Being and Time
The appearance of a steady transition being executed from Being and Time to the Contributions must be strictly avoided, as though it was just a matter of having a subsequent insight into the ambiguities and confusions related to the various directions in which the questions and interpretations were going; as though what came later could still be achieved from within what was left behind; as though it is just a matter of having a purer unfolding of what was seized already. (In truth, it is a leap-over from understanding to going-forth, from laying a foundation to “inception.”) Being and Time is genuinely underway; everything is sketched out and yet it all fails.
As a leap-in, the transition to the Contributions is itself a leap, and only in this way is a confrontation possible. This leap, as a leap-off [Ab-sprung], is made easier and at the same time made more difficult by Being and Time.
There may yet be enough, even now, of that which questioning has, even now, not yet gotten away from; and all of this is never in any way a matter of looking-ahead! [ein zu-sehen!] The look back is necessary—it cannot be overcome!
64. The deepest error in Being and Time
(see Ponderings II, 52 ff. among others
104 f. see the Index) [GA 94]
The deepest error in Being and Time is primarily the determination of Dasein as existing for-the-sake-of-itself, not its “self-centeredness” [das “Ichhafte”] or its restriction to the individuality of the individual in the arbitrary sense of the individual human being; it is rather [175] Dasein as for-the-sake-of-itself (genuinely,