@DocWatts If you try to strictly follow what Heidegger is telling with his categorization of the pre-ontological nature of Dasein...You'll probably get lost and will not understand the juice of what he's saying, because his book is extremely difficult to read (not as Hegel of course) he wasn't as good of a teacher as his mentor, Edmund Husserl...
What worked for me while I was reading Heidegger was to look at my direct experience and try to extract the being-in-the-world that he was talking about... and I came out with two examples:
1 - the experience of freshness when a baby explores the world
2 - the experiential component someone has when moving to another country, especially if it is one by which their culture is very different than his, there's an element of discovery and surprise,  you don't take anything for granted anymore,  your dealings with the environment gets shifted a little bit,  even if some of your activities may look familiar.
These are the examples I could find where the sense of averageness/everydayness start to fade away, and  leaves room for the manifestation of Dasein to arise (once again) in our consciousness,  an then it becomes much easier to grasp the concepts that he was trying to convey in his book.
@DocWatts I hope that Helped!??

One paragraph later:
 

Haha  I was about to deploy the broken clock meme again but I figured that would be too accommodating.
 
Again, the trap here is to get stuck on low resolution value judgements like "good" vs. "bad". The overarching point is that society, like technology, is always evolving.
Technology is an external expression of internal ingenuity, and they build on top of each other: ingenuity creates technology, and technology inspires more ingenuity. Combine this with the fact that knowledge is passed down through generations and you have the dialectical movements of society.
We're evolving towards more complexity and intelligence. This also creates new challenges, and that requires more complex and intelligent solutions. As challenges are overcome, we cultivate collective resilience. You can call that strength.
As society evolves, it cycles between individualist and collectivist stages. The individualist stages like to look at the collectivist ones (especially the higher, more inclusive and compassionate ones) and call them weak, and the collectivist ones like to look down on them and call them stupid, because that is what absolutists do.
It's also easy to get carried away with everyday speech and concede to using these absolutist terms while also recognizing that the accurate terms indeed are "complex" vs. "simple" and "individual" vs. "group." That is just the nature of language and communication (which are simply social means to social ends; social pragmatism).

Reminds me of McKenna's Novelty theory ("Timewave Zero"): take an ill-defined, hypergeneral concept like "novelty" or "good" or "strong" and try to superimpose a pattern on top of an adhoc selection of historical examples. It's pseudoscience.