of the of-which and the about-which of dread which has just been expounded.
This selfsameness must not be understood in such a way that the essential structural moments of the of-which and the about-which would become fused in dread. The selfsameness rather only serves to show that the essence of dread is Dasein itself. Dasein occurs twice, so to speak, in the disposition of dread. This formulation of the phenomenon is of course the very worst way of putting it, its only sense being to give us a preliminary indication of a peculiar state of affairs, namely, that Dasein is an entity in whose being its own being is at issue. But is this actually a phenomenal composition of the being of Dasein itself? For it seems to be directly contradicted by the phenomenon of falling, the flight of Dasein from itself. It became evident in falling that everydayness moves Dasein away from itself. It therefore cannot be said that Dasein is intimately involved with itself in its everydayness. This, however, is still a blind and unphenomenological way of arguing.
In falling, in the flight from itself, Dasein is still constantly there for itself. In the flight from itself it gets behind itself, so that it constantly sees itself implicitly in falling, even if this is in the deceitful way of not wanting to see. But where Dasein in its being flees to, namely, to the being of the Anyone, is indeed itself still only a way of being of Dasein itself, in the sense of a specific being-at-home. What is at stake in the flight from uncanniness [Unheimlichkeit, not-being-at-home] is precisely a cultivation of Dasein itself as being-in-the-world, so much so that it lets itself be determined primarily from the world. It is precisely in the Anyone that Dasein is its discoveredness as uncanniness in the manner we have described. Not only is it not the case that falling detracts from the composition of being we are discussing; falling itself first becomes comprehensible precisely from this composition.
It is this peculiar structure of the being of the entity, that it is an entity for which, within its in-being, that very being is at issue, which we must now grasp in greater detail. But how? We shall define this structure terminologically as care and designate it as a primal structure, the structure of Dasein itself. But I would like to emphasize expressly that this structure does not uncover the ultimate context of the