arne grønpre-understanding of what we are to understand. This condition of
understanding can be taken in terms of framework. This already seems
to be implied when we consider the opening example of standing on
the beach: What can come up on the horizon depends on where we
are standing and in which direction we look, and this depends on the
history which we carry along. Horizon in this second sense concerns
our ways of understanding the world or our “take” on the world: how
we take that which comes up. It is horizon in this second sense that is
at stake in horizon in the first sense.
If we are to take understanding in terms of horizon, it is important
to make sense of the question: do we understand what we encounter
“within” our framework? If our framework determines the ways in
which we take that which we encounter, “within” our horizon means
that what we encounter is already taken within our framework of un-
derstanding. But this taking within presupposes that what we take has
come up “on the horizon” (in the first sense as our field of experience).
“Within” our horizon we encounter other horizons (in the second
sense). We are facing other ways (the ways of others) of seeing and
understanding the world we see. We are not just within our ways of
seeing the world, but in relating to others we can come to see that we
see the world differently — from others. Yet, we do not have other ho-
rizons “within” our own. Rather, we encounter the peculiar character
of horizon: limiting and opening. In relating to others, our own ways
of understanding are reflected. Horizon is not a limit that we can ap-
proach and maybe go beyond. Going beyond would take a horizon,
and yet, we are not just within our horizon. Horizon is both opening
(we are not just within, but have our horizon in relation to others) and
limiting (we carry our horizon in our ways of relating).
Time, Passivity, and Selfhood
The peculiar character of horizon implies that there is passivity and
alterity involved in “having” a horizon. If we seek to explain im-
manence in terms of horizon, immanence itself is turned into a
question. Let us look more closely at the passivity in question — in
order to understand the paradox implied in “seeing beyond what we
see”: we are the ones to see beyond what we see.