In Division One, Chapter III  of Being and Time  Martin Heidegger ontologically explicates the structure of Being by first analyzing that part of Dasein ’s existence categorized as ‘the-world.’  Heidegger provisionally establishes his focus of study on the phenomenon of visible entities within the world to avoid subject-object observations that presuppose Being and lead primarily to ontic descriptions that do not illuminate the nature of Being.  Average everydayness focuses Heidegger’s analytic in such a way as to allow him to establish the worldhood of world as a public domain “we-world” of involvement and references also categorized as environment.

            Focused on existential existence, Heidegger supposes the relationships of Dasein to entities within the world as revealing a care which in turn allows us to understand the structure of Being.  Care (or concern) moves us beyond properties of substance to rather focus our study on relations.  In this study, Heidegger concludes that the world does not reveal itself to us automatically.  With this understanding, he continues that entities within the world do not reveal their nature by proxy either.  In this sense, the world cannot be defined as a synthesis of all the stuff we can knowingly list within the world.

            To get at the ontological understanding of the world (and thus a step closer to understanding the Being of Dasein) Heidegger categorizes entities within the world in the context of relationships to Dasein.  ‘Concern’ forms the basis for Dasein’s relation to other entities.  Heidegger introduces the concepts ‘ready-to-hand’ and ‘presence-at-hand’ as essential relationships within the world.  Equipment and Nature, Heidegger asserts, reveal themselves as ‘ready-to-hand’ when Dasein has a care to impact its own ‘Being-in-the-world.’  Since Dasein is always comported to concern itself with its own Being, concern becomes an outward expression of Dasein’s relation to other entities within the world.

            ‘Presence-at-hand’ is discovered when an entity becomes known.  It seems that ‘presence-at-hand’ can also be rediscovered (or hidden) when an entity does not relate within Dasein’s concern.  ‘Ready-to-hand’ seems to suggest a future action and current intention by Dasein in relationship to a particular entity within the world.  ‘Presence-at-hand’ suggests a knowing of the entity’s existence by Dasein with no immediate intentions and therefore no true relationship between said entity and Dasein.  These kinds of Being seem to merge and overlap within the world because Dasein’s comportment toward its own Being define entities relations within a world that’s always already begun.  That is to say that, Heidegger does not suggest a progression of stages in Being with the concepts of ‘ready-to-hand’ and ‘present-at-hand.’  These types of Being are simply illuminated as Dasein goes about being concerned with its own Being.

            Heidegger continues his analytic of the world by considering the essence of signs as equipment ‘ready-to-hand.’  Signs are determined to be relational for Dasein and may exhibit the essence of Being ‘present-at-hand’ or ‘ready-to-hand’ depending on the context.  The function of the sign within the world is to relate Dasein to some aspect of the environment.  This relation to the environment is again dictated by Dasein’s concern.  Through his explication of signs, Heidegger introduces the structural Being of language as reference in the world for Dasein.

            References by Dasein combined with Dasein’s issue with its own Being form involvements that reveal the world to us; however, the world is always already there to be illuminated through these involvements.  What has already been revealed in the world becomes available for Dasein to use in its own ‘Being-in-the-world.’  This discovery by Dasein of what is or is not useful (i.e. ‘ready-to-hand’) in the world and has already been recognized in the world (i.e. ‘present-at-hand’) forms the ontological foundation for Heidegger’s understanding of the worldhood of the world.  In short, the world’s Being depends on Dasein’s involvements that ultimately go back to Dasein’s own focus on Being-in-the-world.

            Heidegger suggests that through its comportment toward its own Being, Dasein necessarily assigns entities within the world in order to have reference for Dasein’s comportments.  ‘Ready-to-hand’ and ‘present-at-hand’ seem to be references of the most primordial in character.  In assigning, Heidegger infers Dasein assigns itself as well.  Within this assigning, the world becomes an environment of intentions on the part of Dasein which lead back to a ‘for-the-sake-of’ relationship with some entity in the world.  The worldhood of world is the revealing of involvements and relations as Dasein exercises its own issues with its existence.  Relations and involvements, as stated earlier, become assigned by Dasein and the conglomeration of the resulting signs and references reveal a web of involvements as a world of significance.  In average everydayness, Dasein is within its own world of significance- formed of involvements and relationships- while also being emerged in the involvements that were always already there before Dasein.

            Heidegger’s argument that world depends on Dasein’s concern frees the world from one of many “master plans.”  This freeing of the world to the interpretation of relationships suggests a need for us to remain wakeful.  Since the ‘present-at-hand’ may be ‘ready-to-hand’ depending upon Dasein’s concern there develops a real consequence for what we accept as self-evident in average everydayness.  The revealing of the world depends upon us to take notice in our Being of average everydayness of what we see and in turn the assignments we create and support.

            For Dasein, involvements must be understood in order to adequately advocate on the part of anything taking place in the world.  Heidegger tells us, relationships within the world (i.e. significance) cannot be understood externally with systems of thought.  Relationships cannot only be judged by language rather relationships must be analyzed ontologically within the world of significance on which to be advocated.  Heidegger suggests signs are not permanent because one entity can be categorized as ‘ready-to-hand’ or ‘present-at-hand’ depending on Dasein’s concern.  Concern with the world dictates what entities are useful as equipment and what entities have been destroyed, forgotten or fallen into disrepair.  The advocate should seek to understand what’s been forgotten as well as what “obviously” appears as ‘ready-to-hand.’

            Due to the nature of what Heidegger is trying to explain, his argument by its nature contains abstract vagueness which makes the argument difficult to follow.  However, introducing Aristotle at this point in the conversation provides better understanding of this problem.  In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle asserts that certain endeavors in human study can only produce approximations as answers.  In other words, asking Heidegger to be specific about the ontological structure of Being is equivalent to asking a mathematician to approximate the value of two plus two.  Heidegger essentially admits the necessary ambiguity by offering Being and Time as a provisional analytic.

            The ideas of involvement coupled with the nature of assigning relationships gives a new language for analyzing political communication.  In many regards, modern politicians attempt to disassociate and hide themselves from involvements within the world.  When something in the world carries negative connotations, politicians generally assert non-involvement.  Heidegger opens a vocabulary that enhances our ability to speak about not only what involvements politicians support but also those that remain fallow in a state of ‘present-at-hand.’  As I focus my attention on the communicated democratic nature of our government, I will attempt to continue using concepts such as revealing and concern to provide direction for determining the current democratic signs in America as well as how Dasein relates to democracy in the United States of America.