"though we can, of course, attempt to delve into this understanding – as Heidegger does above –, we cannot bring it to absolute theoretical clarity" so, questioning being can't get us any closer to being, because the questioning itself is what arises out of being, and of course itself is a being, so is the questioning, and so is this. but, this is where the questioning is called transparent or lucid. but, once again, i'm not closer to it. i'm simply more aware of it. and, when applied, we can even have some say in how to interperet the initial pre-ontological understanding. instead of jumping to hasty conclusions, we can learn to assume a position of control or co-creation with being. but, it can be rather frightening to examine what is arising in me this way. the being of how i feel about a hair can be whittled down to absolute chaos. i can picture a child being born with this "power". mom says, "are you lying?" child says, "you're lying."....and he's right!!! "Heidegger feels the error of Western thinking has been to posit the theoretical outlook (the subject/object divide) as the unquestionable foundation of thought." i guess this is an indicator of a key difference between analytical and continental philosphy. analytical seems to pick its beings and put them into a tournament bracket, whereas continental philosophy, or maybe just heidegger in particular, consciously sets a single yet infinite battle against being itself, and questions it along the way as the questioner is strewn from concept to concept along-side time. this of course happens no matter what "method" one is "using."