We could go beneath the inescapably public nature of language to the mutual dependency of the ‘we’ and the ‘I’. As Martin Heidegger would put it, our individual human existence as Da-sein – ‘being-there’ – is realized through ‘being-with-others’ – Mit-sein. Social interactions constitute what I am. There is no ‘I’ without ‘we’. If there is ‘I’, there must be ‘we’.
“We,” exist only in relationship. – Jiddu Krishnamurti
Comment:
- “We,” is not restricted to oneself and another person.
- “We,” is oneself, and an object of attention.
- The object of attention can be a person, place, organic thing, inorganic thing, or a thought such as an emotion.
- A self-concept is also a thought.
- This means that because I think, I am because of the relationship with the object of thought.
- Therefore, attention upon a rosebud and not a thought about the rosebud, is also proof that, I am.
- Therefore without a thought or an object of attention, I do not exist, and neither do "we".
- With thought, memory assembles and by comparison with perception, puts order to the world.
And furthermore, what we call a relationship with a person, is largely a relationship with thoughts of that person, unless we're doin' the mess-around or something else biological.