us a concrete understanding of the basic constitution of Dasein. Beingin- the-world became visible in its everydayness and averageness.
[130] Everyday Dasein derives the pre-ontological interpretation of its being from the closest kind of being of the they. The ontological interpretation initially follows this tendency of interpretation, it understands Dasein in terms of the world and finds it there as an innerworldly being. But that is not all: the "closest" ontology of Dasein takes the meaning of being on the basis of which these existing "subjects" are understood also in terms of the "world." But since the phenomenon of world itself is passed over in this absorption in the world, it is replaced by objective presence in the world, by things. The being of beings, which is there too, comes to be understood as objective presence. Thus, by showing the positive phenomenon of closest everyday being-in-the-world, we have made possible an insight into the basic reason why the ontological interpretation of this constitution of being is lacking. It itself, in its everyday kind of being, is what initially misses itself and covers itself over.
If the being of everyday being-with-one-another, which seems ontologically to approach mere objective presence, is really fundamentally different from that kind of presence, then the being of the authentic self can be understood still less as objective presence. Authentic being a self is not based on an exceptional state of the subject, detached from the they, but is an existentiell modification of the they as an essential existential.
But, then, the sameness of the authentically existing self is separated ontologically by a gap from the identity of the I maintaining itself in the multiplicity of its experiences.