This essay is the second part of An Ontology of "We," which has, for its object, a restitution of the meaning of "We" and the sense of a relation between "I" and "We," in this ontological enunciation of "I of/from We." Firstly considering a usual usage of "We," we recognize that the action to call themselves "We" forms a border surrounding this "We" pronounced, in which results the elimination of others like "Them." "We," identical to a differentiation of people being hic et nunc:"We" or "Them." The reason why "We" will be considered the subject, of the community or of the nation itself. So what "We" introduces a border and localizes his identity inside of this border, they must be stand in a dualistic position with "We." It is very important to note that an enunciation of "We" sometimes awakes the emotion of Nationalism. But, the function of an enunciation of "We" is not limited to this meaning. Beacause, if someone calls others "Them" in hostility, "They" could never stay in the position of "Them" against "We" unified. As soon as possible, "They" try to consitute themselves as another unified "We." "We" never conflicts with "Them", exluded from "We", but "We" conflicts with another "We," newly constituted in front of "We." In that way, to call ourselves "We" will provoke the infinited creation of another "We." "We" in front of a series of "We," such as "We against We," "We on our side," etc�c Here we have a dialectics of "lord and bondsman" developed by Hegel in his "Phenomenology of Spirit", so that we disconstruct this "We" toward his positive meaning. Considered as a plan of both recognition of "lord and bondsman", this dialectics, through interpretations of Jacques Lacan and Axel Honnet, opens the space for double meaning of the relation between "I" and "We." At first, as appearence of "I" (= lord) singular from/in the "We" (=bondsman) plural, and secondly as morphology of the coexistence of "I" with "We," imposed by "law=order" to follow the interpretation of Lacan. After all, "We" is not only imposed on by "law," but also shoulders this "order." "We" impersonates "law" itself. "We" is put himself under the "I," which creates himself through the coflict movement of/as "We." "I," as a subject, is the result of this coflict, but "We" is "sub-jected," in its etymological meaning, under the apearence of "I," so that we understand that "We" is the true subject. Here is a meaning of ontological enunciation of "I of/from We."