1. Has the text from which you translated the passage been translated into
English (i.e. in any of the "Essential Works")?
not as far as i know. it's a very short piece from 1973.
2. What, if any, is the relationship between actualiti and Dasein (i.e.
historical ontology)?
Don't think there is any - my sense is Foucault is talking about this in a
more straight-forward sense than you might be trying to read this. that's
why i would resist 'present reality' as a translation if any emphasis is
given to 'reality'. the 'present' is not necessary stressed in the sense of
presence/present (tense) i.e. Heidegger's spatial/temporal reading of
presence. So the relationship to Dasein is tenuous at the very least. Also,
historical ontology seems something quite different. It is true that
Foucault talks of a history of the present, and a historical ontology of the
present, but i'm fairly sure that is neither the same word for present nor
does it imply every time he says 'present' he means historical ontology.
3. Am I right in thinking that they can both be comprehended as being the
"background" of existence?
Both what? Actualite and Dasein? Dasein is clearly not the background of
existence. Dasein, of course, _is_ existence (albeit not in a
straight-forward way) - although maybe i misunderstand what you mean by
'background', and l'actualite doesn't seem to be this either.
English (i.e. in any of the "Essential Works")?
not as far as i know. it's a very short piece from 1973.
2. What, if any, is the relationship between actualiti and Dasein (i.e.
historical ontology)?
Don't think there is any - my sense is Foucault is talking about this in a
more straight-forward sense than you might be trying to read this. that's
why i would resist 'present reality' as a translation if any emphasis is
given to 'reality'. the 'present' is not necessary stressed in the sense of
presence/present (tense) i.e. Heidegger's spatial/temporal reading of
presence. So the relationship to Dasein is tenuous at the very least. Also,
historical ontology seems something quite different. It is true that
Foucault talks of a history of the present, and a historical ontology of the
present, but i'm fairly sure that is neither the same word for present nor
does it imply every time he says 'present' he means historical ontology.
3. Am I right in thinking that they can both be comprehended as being the
"background" of existence?
Both what? Actualite and Dasein? Dasein is clearly not the background of
existence. Dasein, of course, _is_ existence (albeit not in a
straight-forward way) - although maybe i misunderstand what you mean by
'background', and l'actualite doesn't seem to be this either.