"saying and what is said in it and what is to be said"

Heidegger begins his path towards language by engaging in a dialogue with a Japanese person as an inquirer. In this Heidegger specifically refers to language as the house of Being (many times). The presumed problem (at least from what I saw) was that if language is the "house of being" (first noted on 5) then Heidegger fears that he has stated that he is in a different "house" than the Japanese person, simply because they speak different languages. This would mean that these languages are completely different and distinct, making any dialogue between the two impossible (though it remains as the premise of this dialogue). The problem with the interaction between "houses" is made more apparent through their discussion of transcripts and even in their attempts to translate one word from language to language. Especially their long discussion about the japanese word for language (Koto ba on 45)

There is talk about hermeneutics, "a science that deals with the goals, ways, and rules of the interpretation of literary works(10)", and how it deals with interpretation in general. Furthermore it seems that in Being and Time hermeneutics means more than mere interpretation but rather the attempt to interpret hermeneutically, becoming a process (yeah...I don't know, on 11). There is talk about the arts and poetry and how it relates to this distinction. In Japanese there is a word Iro for color and Ku for emptiness, the open, the sky in that without Iro there is no Ku. Heidegger makes this more clear by giving the equivalent(-like) that through the aistheton, or that which is perceived by the senses, the noeton, or the nonsensuous, is able to reveal itself (14).

From this, I understand that hermeneutics is not the interpretation but that which makes the interpretation possible. I found it similar to what we had talked about in class about Being, not Being being itself but rather the essence through which being can exist. Language enters the realm between the sensuous and the suprasensuous. We use language to describe the world but it itself is not completely descriptive in that we often find difficulty describing or explaining things. Words often hint at something that is there when we find difficulty to point to it directly (43). Alternately, I think this very same difficulty also makes language so rich in that we can create new sentences every day and they become completely unique and different to any that have been before.