City as symbol of the self. Let’s not do this literalistically, item by item of possible correspondence. & let’s do it in at least a halfway contemporary way, acknowledging that a self is anyway, temporary, a snapshot of a passing state, less an item than an assembly of the relations between some other–constantly shifting–items. Like a dream, which, in Hillman’s formulation, tells us “where we are, not what to do”, a self–a city–is a progress report. Or absolutely not even that, because why does the self, the city, the dream, have to have a purpose or a product ? That’s why products, along with built environments, though sold as dreams, have so little in them of an actual dream. & maybe selves are the same.