projection pure and simple, because as ecstatic it makes possible all projecting upon ... and represents, together with the horizon belonging to the ecstasis, the condition of possibility of an upon-which, an out-toward-which in general, it can no longer be asked upon what the schemata can on their part be projected, and so on in infinitum. The series, mentioned earlier, of projections as it were inserted one before the other—understanding of beings, projection upon being, understanding of being, projection upon time—has its end at the horizon of the ecstatic unity of temporality. We cannot establish this here in a more primordial way; to do that we would have to go into the problem of the finiteness of time. At this horizon each ecstasis of time, hence temporality itself, has its end. But this end is nothing but the beginning and starting point for the possibility of all projecting. If anyone wished to protest that the description of that to which the ecstasis as such is carried away, the description of this as horizon, is after all only an interpretation once more of the whither in general to which an ecstasis points, then the answer would be as follows. The concept "horizon" in the common sense presupposes exactly what we are calling the ecstatic horizon. There would be nothing like a horizon for us if there were not ecstatic openness for ... and a schematic determination of that openness, say, in the sense of praesens. The same holds for the concept of the schema.
Fundamentally it must be noted that if we define temporality as the original constitution of the Dasein and thus as the origin of the possibility of the understanding of being, then Temporality as origin is necessarily richer and more pregnant than anything that may arise from it. This makes manifest a peculiar circumstance, which is relevant throughout the whole dimension of philosophy, namely, that within the ontological sphere the possible is higher than everything actual. All origination and all genesis in the field of the ontological is not growth and unfolding but degeneration, since everything arising arises, that is, in a certain way runs away, removes itself from the superior force of the source. A being can be uncovered as a being of the ontological type of the handy, it can be encountered in our commerce with it as the being which it is and how it is in itself, only if and when this uncovering and commerce with it are illuminated by a praesens somehow understood. This praesens is the horizonal schema of the ecstasis which determines primarily the temporalizing of the temporality of all dealings with the handy. We did indeed show that the temporality of dealing with equipment is a retentive-expectant enpresenting. The ecstasis of the present is the controlling ecstasis in the temporality of commerce with the handy. It is for this reason that the being of the handy—namely, handiness—is understood primarily by way of praesens.
The result of our considerations thus far, which were intended to serve to exhibit the Temporality of being, can be summarized in a single sentence.