A: After studying John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson’s translation of Being and Time for nearly two years, I am of the opinion, as I was from the first reading, that being with cannot be an existentiale of which there is reciprocation. But in saying so, this does not exclude being with from worthy qualification.
If being authentic or being owned is the way of being divorced from a generic anyone, and being authentic or being owned does not have the possibility for multiplicity, then the possibility of authenticity or ownedness is an inappropriate way to talk about any particular friend, colleague, or lover—and I am sure that these words name another way of being (being a theoretical entity, which architectonically may fall near a thematic entity. (See 20.07.14, Nietzsche, Spirit)
B: By now, many must have considered the treatment of epistemological skepticism in Being and Time.
Even if Heidegger is right that we have “access” to entities within-the-world more primordially than by way of cognition, it is nonetheless true that we do sometimes cognize those objects, try to know them. When we do try to know them cognitively we can entertain skeptical worries about that knowledge. (William Blattner, Heidegger’s Being and Time, chapter 3, section XI, page 112)
And as I understand being with (A), a skeptic could replace “object” in this quote with “friend, colleague, or lover”. But if one wants to make that amendment, then they should remember that successfully challenging the constitution of an entity can only lead to a description of a new entity. One might say, “You can trust M, he has integrity”—and there is no doubt. Even if I were to recommend another to, “Question G’s intention” I am still confident as to G’s constitution. I am confident that she is an entity to question. Perhaps the skeptic who wants to get to know his friend has forgotten that the being present of that entity resists a description of a substance changing over time—one can only admit an entity to stand as it is. Instead it could be that a new entity is already found. Perhaps what one now has before them is not a friend, but a friend opened to change. Perhaps from friend into lover?
So, despite my above statement (A) no one should give credence to skeptical thoughts. That is, no one should worry over becoming detached from anyone or of becoming detached from the world—there is always the primordial connection, even in acknowledging my understanding of being with (A).