Where oneself ends, and not-oneself begins, I understand is a difficult subject even at the best of times (whenever that might be) and for the best of minds (which I am very far from being). A unified consciousness is a myth; whatever it is that thinks, perceives, emotes, is divisible into multiple constituent parts. I am told that the trends of current philosophy hold that Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” is refutable because it cannot be irretrievably proven that there is a singular “I.”
This wandering locus of self is even more acutely felt in and among domains where the ego (that artillery mounted on the self’s porches) is accustomed to muting itself and hiding as the learned method of preservation. Through retreat and self-annihilation, one might remain safely under the umbrella of domination, and not force others to contend with the discomfort of one’s personality, interests, predilections, &c. being separate and distinct from the others around, who may be more accustomed to the invisibility of familiarity. (The inversion of the clause, framing as “not forcing others,” is a neat little reaction formation nestled within the broader displacement and intellectualization that predominates.) Indeed, what’s the point of “I,” with so many others rearranging the world around them, in which one is flung and turned and settled into such tidy roles.