All our efforts in the existential analytic serve the one aim of finding a possibility of answering the question of the meaning of Being in general. To work out this question, we need to delimit that very phenomenon in which something like Being becomes accessible — the phenomenon of the understanding of Being. But this phenomenon is one that belongs to Dasein’s state of Being. Only after this entity has been Interpreted in a way which is sufficiently primordial, can we have a conception of the understanding of Being, which is included in its very state of Being; only on this basis can we formulate the question of the Being which is understood in this understanding, and the question of what such understanding ‘presupposes’.
It seems to me that this might constitute a general framework for approaching any kind of soft-systems quandary and converting it into an explicit question or problem.
- Delimit the phenomenon in question, so its being becomes accessible.
- Interpret the phenomenon primordially, in order to attain a conception of phenomenon (a way of “taking it together” as a whole).
- Formulate the question of the Being which is understood in this understanding, and the question of what such understanding ‘presupposes’.
Then you answer the question. In my world the question is a design problem posed as compactly as possible in a brief, the answer is a design, and the truth standard is whether the design works as intended.