convivo ergo sum

The idea of self has to be redefined. Even if this inner divine is disguised as a self-steering, autonomous, homeostatic, balancing mechanism; or even if the divine is disguised as the integrating deeper intention of the whole personality, it’s still a transcendent notion, with theological implications if not roots. If the self were defined as the interiorization of community, then the boundaries between me and another would be much less sure. I would be with myself when I’m with others. I would not be with myself when I’m walking alone or meditating or in my room imagining or working on my dreams. In fact, I would be estranged from myself. And “others” would not include just other people, because community, as I see it, is something more ecological, or at least animistic. A psychic field.

So it wouldn’t be, “I am because I think,” (“Cogito ergo sum”, as Descartes said.) It would be, as somebody said to me the other night, “I am because I party.” Convivo ergo sum.

linked mentions for "convivo ergo sum":

1. individual neighbours separated actual self
   family I won’t accept these simple opposites—either individual self in control or a totalitarian , mindless mob. This kind of fantasy keeps us