let me know if this is an accurate representation of it:

There was. I wrote:

In fact, this sense of an "experiencing ego" may just be a heuristic that has evolved over time, much like Dennett's "intentional stance." I am going to expound further on this after the following break.

and

There is a note I'd like to make at this point. There are still the other aspects of consciousness, as Dennett would be quick to point out (as would Buddhism). The only thing Buddhism and Dennett are eliminating is the hard problem aspect of consciousness. There is no "self," "I," or "ego" that is "phenomenologically experiencing" life. If anything, it's a linguistic vestige, which may hold some pragmatic value, although, many would be quick to point out that maintaining such a paradigm of the self (maya) is one of the root causes of suffering.

So this:

The "language of the I" or the "thinking of the I" is pretty much an accident of western thought that contaminates metaphysics, ontology, and pretty much everything western

is not entirely right. It is on the right track though. A better way of putting it would have been:

"The 'language of the I' or the 'thinking of the I' is prominent, and "held on to" in western thought, and is allowed to contaminate metaphysics and ontology."

So what I think is that western philosophy doesn't acknowledge the problem that eastern philosophy has realized: there is no separation of an object from its surroundings, including the "I," which continues to persist in our language, despite it being a creation of our heuristics.

Now, what I contend is that the "thinking of the I" is not merely pragmatic, is foundational, primordial and unavoidable.

I don't think it's completely unavoidable (as in, it may be initially unavoidable in the evolution of language and the brain, but it is possible to eliminate from our langauge), but I'll admit (owing to the previous parenthetical) that it is probably primordial and foundational to our thought.

However, it would seem that it is not specifically the "I" itself that is foundational to our thought; rather, it is like a "structural stance" (as Van Cleave says) in general (and now we are getting into functionalism vs structuralism; but now you may begin to realize why I say it is pragmatic to continue using [the concept of self], despite it not being an actual structure).

Subjectivity is ONLY subjectivity within the realm of the linguistic. But there is no OTHER realm than the linguistic, and there is no linguistic realm without the I. The I and language (and you) are in a relationship of mutual fundamental constitution.

Fair enough. I must agree with this.

If Chomsky's generative grammar is correct, and there is a deep, "neuro-genetic" structure for language, then that's pretty much that. You're born into the "I", and you socialize starting from and to the "I", and it has been like that from all the way back in the caves to today. Additionally, there is very strong evidence that if you, for example, leave a group of children alone, they will form their own language and they will have a more or less predictable structure of "I" (this is seen in the formation of pidgin languages, in the formation of sign languages amongst deaf communities). And a lot of people seem to be pretty certain that yes, the "I" position in the language is actually fundamental, and if you think about it you will se that it is absolutely natural.

I agree with everything up to here. But:

You could not have indicative language without the "I" position. Here, there, afar, close, up, down, towards, you me i we you them past present future, its all of it centered on that point.

So while it seems I agree with this, I'm still just saying that this "I" doesn't really exist, but it is pragmatic to use it in such a way, owing to what you're speaking of.

I suppose what I can offer here is this: none of the information generated from using such terms that center around the "I" actually contribute to any substantive, objective knowledge; and so deemphasizing its use where possible, at least in philosophy- where our conversation is salient- would be for the best; again, something which it seems eastern philosophy has moved on with, but western philosophy hasn't (and in fact, it seems that western philosophy is heavily into structuralism and "being," vs eastern philosophy's being heavily into functionalism and "doing"- reflected e.g. by the east's recent flourishing in process-philosophy w.r.t Whitehead, as well as being reflected by their philosophical thoughts about what the west would call the absolute- where we see it as unchanging, eastern philosophy sees it fundamentally as eternally changing- e.g. Brahman, and possibly the Tao).

This is what I'm saying, and I think we agree with this: there is no other "I" that the "I" of language.

Yup.

But language needs to be understood as a very deep fundamental part of what it is that we are, it is what makes us, us.

It's what makes our world (as Heidegger would have said, right?) the way it is. Most worlds reflect this type of thinking, but again, I insist that Eastern philosophy is heavily based in eliminating this from their ontology (for one purpose or another) whereas something like process philosophy is extremely unpopular in the west.

And you're not gonna run away from it.

In everyday life? Nope. You're right- like I said, it's pragmatic to keep it. In the philosophical thought that I tend to agree with, and the scientific enterprise? I think we can eliminate it.

You draw this big difference between "westerners" and "easterners" and... welp, there doesn't seem to be that much of a difference.