Nikhil M That by which a thing is known as what it is by you,say a piece of equipment, is so, because you in your relationship to your existence,relate to it. A discarded coke bottle may seem like annoying litter to you, but if it fell to Earth from a plane above, into the dwelling of a primitive tribe, it might be considered a sacred gift from the gods. Same thing, different manifestation of being, related to different ways of being.

Check out the first reply www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/4eor92/what_does_heidegger_mean_by_comportment/

siddharth b You going to work, was never chosen by you. You simply do it because that is what one dose. You actually find your self feeling that this is very much the correct thing to do. Thus your way of being, say feeling and understanding are purely contingent on the way of being of Someone like you at this time in your culture. If you were borne with a different gender, into a different culture, at a different time, you would not recognise yourself. This is because you are inauthentic and you do believe in the existence of a enduring subjective self. But if you were authentic you would understand the same Being at work in the for mentioned example. Hiedegger dose not want to give you more truths to believe in, he wants you to experience a truth, related to truth in a different way.

@@Mtmonaghan 1) When you say: "you are inauthentic and you do believe in the existence of a enduring subjective self", is this living inauthentically because one is taking their Dasein not as (Being there) but rather as some ontic-present-at-hand entity? 2) Is it in Haidegger's language or jargon to talk about "enduring-subjective-self" or is this Buddhist / Vedantic language / jargon? (Not that I disagree with Buddhist / Vedantic expressions, I just would like to know where this is coming from). 3) Can you explain what it means to be "authentic"? You said, if we were authentic we wold understand the same Being at work in ....? Are you saying that we would understand the same Being at work regardless of any false-ontic-self that we regard as present at hand situation or circumstance?

Being a true philosopher, you cannot regard a viewpoint as a 'Ditch' or something abhored. He might have revisited the notion of an absolute entity, but calling his life's work a 'fly in the bottle approach' is not a correct justification. It's his viewpoint, you may either subscribe to it or not.

Ya the ontological study of the meaning of the other through Cartesian dualism is a metaphysical ontology that disregards the life of being and falls short of a proper investigation of being

No.