satisfies the requirements for a primordial Interpretation of Dasein.xi The upshot of these considerations has been that neither the whole of Dasein nor its authentic potentiality-for-Being has ever been made a theme. The structure of care, however, seems to be precisely where the attempt to grasp the whole of Dasein as a phenomenon has foundered. The "ahead-of-itself" presented itself as a "not-yet". But when the "ahead-of-itself" which had been characterized as something still outstanding, was considered in genuinely existential manner, it revealed itself as Being-towards-the-end—something which, in the depths of its Being, every Dasein is. We made it plain at the same time that in the call of conscience care summons Dasein towards its ownmost potentiality-for-Being. When we came to understand in a primordial manner how this appeal is understood, we saw that the understanding of it manifests itself as anticipatory resoluteness, which includes an authentic potentiality-for-Being-a-whole—a potentiality of Dasein. Thus the care-structure does not speak against the possibility of Being-a-whole but is the condition for the possibility of such an existentiell potentiality-forBeing. In the course of these analyses, it became plain that the existential phenomena of death, conscience, and guilt are anchored in the phenomenon of care. The totality of the structural whole has become even more richly articulated; and because of this, the existential question of the unity of this totality has become still more urgent.
How are we to conceive this unity? How can Dasein exist as a unity in the ways and possibilities of its Being which we have mentioned? Manifestly, it can so exist only in such a way that it is itself this Being in its essential possibilities-that in each case I am this entity. The 'I' seems to 'hold together' the totality of the structural whole. In the 'ontology' of this entity, the 'I' and the 'Self' have been conceived from the earliest times as the supporting ground (as substance or subject). Even in its preparatory characterization of everydayness, our analytic has already come up against the question of Dasein's "who". It has been shown that proximally and for the most part Dasein is not itself but is lost in the they-self, which is an existentiell modification of the authentic Self. The question of the ontological constitution of Selfhood has remained unanswered. In principle, of course, we have already fixed upon a clue for this problem;xii for if the Self belongs to the essential [wesenhaften] attributes [318] of Dasein, while Dasein's 'Essence' ["Essenz"] lies in existence, then "I"-hood and Selfhood must be conceived existentially. On the negative side, it has also been shown that our ontological characterization of the "they" prohibits us from making any use of categories of presence-at-hand (such as substance). It has become clear, in principle, that ontologically care is not to be derived from Reality or to be built up with the