A Thought in the Air

“Perhaps this idea of self-as-community was what it meant to be a being in the world, any being; such a being being, after all, inevitably a being among other beings, a part of the beingness of all things" (Rushdie, The Enchantress of Florence).

The question I pose is: should we ever consider ourselves an "I?"

Are we not always one with something? We have to be connected permanently at any given time with one other thing, whether it be the clothes on your back, the thoughts in your brain, or the worries that you carry. When you go to an outing, are you not taking a belonging with you, should it not be considered as an object that could be included in the "we."

The existence of the "I," therefore, should be deleted. Never is "I" possible in conversation. We (myself and this blog) suppose the only time when appropriately saying an "I" in a sentence is in death. It is only logical that when one dies they must only take themselves. It is not possible to say w"e died." For, even if you take someone or something with you--that object will continue to exist in its captivated state; that person will leave this would, but individually, not with the dealer of death and "we."

No, it is only in death that we can use the correct purpose of "I." Only in death are we alone.
This secret is not to be depressing or lonesome. We must admit (me and my thoughts) that by the time of death, we will be exhausted of the "we's." Dear me, the we's will be enough of our existence that the "I" will be welcome--the "I" will be peaceful.

Dear Olympic Sponsors,

I severely wish Tide would quit making the commercials that appeal to daughters who've played sports. If I tear up during one more commericial that initially attracks an emotional response due to the sad, classical music and video real of a mom-chearing on her struggling athletic daughter and then, finally, watching as her daughter made it to the olympics winning gold (always gold) and the daughter, hugging her mom at the finish line, realizing the always obvious fact that she (the selfless, kaki wearing, minivan driving, "I did this for you, but would never say it," SOB) was her truest supporter and sacrificer throughout her childrood-I swear I'm going to literally send my mom ten to twenty heart emojis.

Because nothing in this world says, "thank you for all that you have put aside for my dreams and my future" like a heart emoji. You're welcome mom; now, I'm hungry and the basement is getting drafty so please make me a sandwich while you turn up the heat. 

Sincerely,

the daughter with the worthless Language Arts degree

For Tai-the Rebuttal

Tai-I just want to say that it's been 2 years and I finally feel the need to respond to the wonder-of-a-masterpeice which you so elegantly wrote for me.
You say that we have to consider today's authors. You say that they represent our culture and our society. You say that-yes-you do hate them, but that's not important. Erroneous!
Today's authors may stem from a form of popular culture, but I argue that the dribble we see on television and in today's entertainment is not our culture. These authors make up a small, insignificant amount  of shelf that we, in a state of grogginess and confusion, are drawn towards. Maybe it's the every increasing work week, or maybe it's just the fact that today's popular authors overtake and conceal the more accurate writers in our generation. Let's face it, to be in front of the crowd of Target-goers today you have to write for what sales. Is that literature? Should we call today's popular authors today's significant authors?
It is a mere fraction of what makes up American ideals and a mere fraction of what makes up the population's core interest. I say that today's popular novels, although intriguing, are remnants of a rubric that works. They say that the Mary Tyler More show was written off of a template that produced the same show, different dialogue every night. Why? It sold. Every night viewers tuned in to watch a successful recipe flourish in real time. The books today sell copies and turn pages; the novels on the shelves today, with the exception of a few, do not report the overwhelming fears and celebrations of our society. They are the Mary Tyler More of textual language.
In their credit, most of the popular fiction today does label itself as Young Adult literature; to write such a novel, you are intending to appeal to a certain audience. An audience that primarily does not entirely understand their own feelings let alone the feelings of an entire country.
No, the true American novel, since the early 1900's, has been The Great Gatsby. 
"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
Our culture can still be summed up in the one line that Fitzgerald so accurately pins onto the tail of that ever-wanting, ever-selfservicing culture. The green light Tai is continually growing, dimming, and growing again. We will never be satisfied and, therefore, I will never be satisfied with today's authorship. It's the winding gyre that Yeats warned us about. Circling ever so closely to my world, but never achieving it's goal of contentment. No, today's authors cannot summarize American culture because American culture does not want to be understood. We are the Wanting.