abstract
This article defends the strict ontological priority of co-existence, which has not yet been fully recognized in the mainstream phenomenological tradition. The article believes that understanding the attribute of co-being or understanding the relationship between co-being and others fails to grasp the deeper meaning of "co-being". Co-existence is not a relationship, but a mediating unity that ontologically precedes all directions, the separation of all beings, and precedes Dasein itself. By re-examining Heidegger's discussion on coexistence, examining the tilt of direction as the original, and drawing on the theoretical resources of non-conservation of parity, we point out that Dasein is not the basis of coexistence, but a tilt of coexistence itself. The article further shows how communion generates language, thought, and commonly recognized structures, and ultimately points to an existential understanding rooted in commonality and mutuality rather than the isolated self.
1. Introduction
In the phenomenological tradition, the priority of Dasein is less controversial. Dasein raises questions, Dasein plans, and Dasein exists to death. Others enter this existence, and as present persons they encounter in the world, they make the world understandable. The existence of others is indeed not an appendage, but a common structure; but the existence of others still comes from the investigation of Dasein. Gongzhi is recognized in the way it has unfolded since then.
This idea can be called "co-existence from the perspective of Dasein." Its value lies in that it breaks the modern concept of subjectivity based on the lonely self; its limitation lies in that it still stays on the same axis and just embeds the self into the world. It has not yet regarded Co-Being in itself as a being that no longer needs Dasein as a support point, a being that precedes its own dialectics, an original "sameness" that is not exhausted by the appearance of "this".
This article attempts to think more thoroughly about coexistence. This paper believes that Dasein is not the basis of coexistence, but a deviation of coexistence. Direction, as the way for thought to move towards the object, is not a certain beginning starting from "me", but a texture, a bend of the same, through which Dasein is highlighted. In order to see this clearly, we must abandon the presupposition that relations are secondary to the experiencer, or more accurately, recognize that the state we call "sameness" is hierarchically prior to any being that can constitute a relationship.
2. Coexistence: the settlement from Heidegger to this Oexistence
Heidegger established the universal structure of Dasein. Dasein is not a subject that encounters the world, it already inhabits the world. Heidegger further confirmed that the existence of others already exists in this world. Coexistence is not a matter of empirical encounter. It precedes the encounter; it makes the encounter possible. Dasein has always been with people in some way. Heidegger calls it: Dasein is "co-existence.
However, in Heidegger, the structural priority is still Dasein itself. The situation does not mean that this exists in isolation first and then others are added. Coexistence is one of its own ways of unfolding. But Dasein is still that foundation. Dasein is the one that carries the "this" of co-existence. Therefore, Dasein is a question of "who", and co-existence is a question of "how to be". Only in the "concrete development" of Dasein contains the existence of others.
This article wants to put forward another statement: co-existence precedes "this" in structure.
This "this", as the "this" of "Dasein", is already the same inclination and orientation. It is only from the existence that has unfolded, that is already in the world, that has been thrown into the future, that Dasein can be regarded as that specific, my Dasein. But all of this about "me" presupposes that I am already in "unity". This priority of "unity" is not temporal, but structural, nor is it ethical, but ontological. Only in the "same" can there be a me to talk about one you, one object, and one direction.
3. Coexistence is neither a relationship nor a collective nature
If we are not careful, we will regard coexistence as a relationship. A relationship requires two endpoints. But coexistence precedes duality. It must be before the "two" exists. Therefore, coexistence is not a relationship, but a medium. A space that has not yet been broken, from which all directions flow and has not yet distinguished one another in a separate way.
Understand this carefully. We do not deny that in the empirical world, beings are separated from each other and there is dualism and difference. We do not even deny that this separation is real. What we want to say is that what we call "coexistence" is the common opening through which those who are separated can emerge, not the bonds between those who are separated.
This "identity" is not about the identity of an isolated collective. It is not a collective "one" that crushes individuals. On the contrary, it is openness without any center to exclude others. It is the same precisely because there is nothing else opposed to it. It has no antithesis. It has no borders. It is in this sense that co-existence is not objectified. Once we try to treat it as an object, it disappears. The way to objectify operation is precisely separation. Coexistence existed before objectification.
This is why coexistence can be felt, pointed out, and signified, but can never be grasped as a direct manifestation. It is precisely because we are deeply immersed in dualism that our minds strive to conceptualize this original sameness-the closest concept we can give is "co-existence."
4. Tilt of direction as common
The tradition of presence thinking has long defended the priority of direction over specific content. Direction is not the goal. It's not a plan. It is a more fundamental trend that precedes any clear direction "toward" something. However, when the direction occurs in co-existence, the direction is already a deflection.
Here,"direction" is the initial distinction. "Direction" allows the distinction between "where to go" and "where to come from" for the first time. However, the distinction between "where to go" and "where to come from" presupposes the same, and the direction is emerging from this same. The direction is the first bend of this "same".
We may think of it this way: Pure sameness has any direction. Not only does it not have a center, it does not even have any direction. This is not nothingness, but the kind of perfection from which nothing has yet been highlighted. The direction is the first deflection: here, the same begins to bend around a center that does not yet exist. Only with this bend do "here" and "there","I" and "you" emerge.
We can also understand "this" in "dasein" as "here" in this bend. This "this" is not a random point in the world, but a fold created by its own deflection. Dasein emerges from this fold, like a echo or a crease. Therefore, Heidegger started from "Dasein" and started from this fold. Therefore, co-existence is not coexistence derived from Heidegger's Dasein, but the open "unity" from which this unique "this" itself appears.
5. Structural analogy between symmetry and parity breaking
"Same" is complete symmetry. In this symmetry, the world is perfectly balanced. No single manifestation is visible, no structure is separated from all else. But without direction, the world would not become a phenomenon. If the symmetry is perfect, consciousness will never awaken. Unless the initial breach occurs, there will be neither this nor that. Without deflection, there is no time.
In physics, the phenomenon of parity breaking reveals a fascinating limit in modern physics: nature is not completely mirror symmetric at its deepest level. Left and right are not equivalent in all basic interactions. This suggests that reality as we know it is not a perfectly symmetrical unfolding; it is marked by an original deviation. The reason why the world is alive is precisely that it has become asymmetrical.
Philosophy can find resonance here. Existence would not be perceived without the tiniest deflection. Without deflection, there is no direction, no difference, and no content. Without direction, without distinction, without content, there is no manifestation. But the deflection presupposes the balance that precedes the deflection as its underlying basis, in which the deflection itself occurs. We proposed co-existence at the exact location of this structure. Coexistence is the balance that appears. It is the same that never appears anywhere, but is preset in every direction.
The direction we ask will never be completely objectified. We can ask about it just because we have been caught by the same. "Tong" is the background of every questioning, every question, every time you arrive at it, or every questioning that avoids it on the way. This is exactly what remains before all symmetry is broken.
6. The emergence of language as coexistence
Language is often used as a tool: an individual has inner states and then uses symbols to refer to those states in order to send this isolated heart to another person. This picture just solidifies the separation we want to question.
But once we think that commonality precedes direction, language is conceivable. It does not rise from the immanence of loneliness, but emerges from a deeper level. The word precedes any "I" who uses it. Language potentially stretches in multiple dimensions. Language is not a product of a self, but a product of the original separation that originates from the world itself.
The way we use language today occurs after communion has been shattered. To speak is to stand in deviation and call for a kind of commonality. The reason why a word can enter another person's life is because language has predetermined everything that each other can share. Without this, language would be powerless. Speaking comes from a certain "sameness" and the purpose is to be heard.
This also explains why the process of thinking and talking can be richer than the final statement. A complete sentence is always a separation and a formed content. However, thought, in its complete development, carries a trace of original unity. What constitutes thought is not just what is said, but also the coexistence in it, around it, and at its depths.
7. Structural implications of practice
Before the attribution of ethical or political significance, coexistence has become a preexisting entanglement. And this may be the most profound significance of coexistence as a practical category.
If direction rises from unity, then the direction of one being is truly "recognizable" only when seen by another being who can jointly recognize it. Direction is not just a personal inclination for me. Direction is a wave rising from the same, and only when it is experienced by more than one consciousness does it take on a perceptible form. Thus, co-recognizers are not only interlocutors expected by the self with a direction; they are almost the medium that the direction itself needs to gain the discernment and reality required for its generation.
Similarly, the existence of the foundation is not guaranteed by returning to the immanence of loneliness, but by dwelling in the commonality. It is when the direction breaks and the direction becomes stubborn to itself that it becomes an obsession. The direction that loses contact with the hidden commonality may no longer be a direction, but a defensive attitude. When no one else is present to witness the path I have taken, I may still think I am moving in one direction, but all I am really doing is constructing a personal object. Only when it is seen by others can this direction take on new life.
8. Coexistence and modern survival
Today, it is widely believed that to find authenticity or integrity, one must retreat into solitude and into private immanence. But this view itself is already a deviation. It thinks from the perspective of "I". It envisions a path to freedom through self-sufficiency. However, the deeper authenticity may not lie in self-isolation, but in the realization that one has always coexisting with this commonality in a more fundamental way. Man does not exist in the "me", but exists in that "me", through me, and more closely connected to me. One person coexists with others.
Perhaps the so-called "loneliness at the level of beings" is nothing more than forgetting our original coexistence. Perhaps loneliness does not mean that one is truly isolated from others, but just that one is entangled too closely with "me" within oneself.
IX. Conclusion
Coexistence is not just a feature of being here and having direction. It is a common opening that precedes Dasein, precedes each of its ways, precedes any direction that may arise from it.
Dasein is a crease that appears from this sameness. The direction is a deviation in this congruence. The world is one of this deflection that continues to unfold.
In the fundamental situation of this world, we are always moving east, west, inside or outside. We travel through the vast landscape of existence that never fully appears to us. But we never start from a "me" outside the landscape. We have always been in commonality, in which everything has come together, and then direction emerges.
This is why the path requires witnesses. This is why the true direction is never just a private feeling, but a shared witnessing. This is why real people, even when they die alone, are never completely free of the coexistence that already surrounds them.
Because existence itself is shared with it. And our loneliness, our freedom, our front, all of this happens in the deepest sense-the commonality that we have always existed together.