This essay constitutes the second part of The relationship between <I and We> in the formation of <Subject>. Since today we suffer the <absence> of Subjectivity, we are forced to acknowledge this absence in order to <re->construct a new signification of the Subject. In the first part of this essay, having verified the relationship between <I and We>, we reconstitute it as the relationship <among-Us>, including <I> and coexisting with <others>. We are calling this the relationship <I of We>. However, it’s not enough to understand the formation of <Subject>, because of a lapse of the dynamic side in the formation of <Subject>. Then, we look back upon our serious Japanese experience through the student movements of the 1960’s, where we Japanese expected to create a new Japanese Identity, trying to reconstruct a new <We>. Known by its collapse, the failure of these movements settled us in one-way traffic, toward the consciousness of <only I exist>, without any necessity for <We>, or <among-Us>. Therefore, we are here without any <We>! Being faced with this tragic situation, we are required to make the formation of <Subject> clearer, by analyzing and developing the reverse side of the relationship between <I and We>, expressed as <We of I>, so that the meaning of Jean-Luc Nancy’s <Existence>, expressed by <Being-together>, will be asked in the Chiasma relation such as <I of We> and <We of I>.