What am I playing

[Reciprocality]

I am playing the character of "me", but why is that character there? And what kind of thing is that character?

If we could know what kind of a thing it is could we know about that kind of thing that its possibility or contingency arises within it and that it could therefore never fail to be, could not be contingent on anything different from it?

What kind of a thing am I?

Edited September 5 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

Jiddu Krishnamurti says that I am humanity, am I? 

[Reciprocality]

Knowledge speaks but wisdom listen , the whole world is going on , right? What if we just pay a little bit more attention wouldn't we catch a glimpse? How wide does judgements need to be to inhibit true expression?

Do I even have a concept of how schackled I am, could you possibly be different? Have you forgotten the 5 year old? How many calculations of differing perspectives, how many valuations of right and wrong, purposeful and lame do we churn through to just make it through paragraph?

[Reciprocality]

How many layers of intension does your mind go through just to produce a comment? And how poorly would we deal with life if it were not second nature to conceal them?

[Yimpa]

You’re playing with yourself. 

[Reciprocality]

Yes

[Buck Edwards]

Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum"... This Latin phrase, meaning "I think, therefore I am," is a foundational argument for the existence of the self. It suggests that the act of thinking proves one's existence. You think and so you ARE. 

Kant argued that the self is a transcendental unity of apperception, meaning it is a necessary condition for experience.Existentialists emphasize the individual's freedom to choose their own meaning and identity in life, often highlighting the absurdity of existence.

You make out of your existence what you want to. That's how it is. 

[Reciprocality]

@Buck Edwards Appreciate the Philosophical references! And it is hard not to get overexcited when someone references Kants works.

There does not need to be a transcendental unity of apperception, for one because possibility itself is sufficiently accounted for by investigation into its meaning (there is no reason why that which is possible should be prior to what is actual) and secondly because of Kants own argument against transcendent beings posited to exist merely via a form of induction whether these be God, nothingness, randomness, substance, soul or possibility etc.

In better terms: the a priory status of Kants Categories and the derivability of the concept of those categories from mere sensory stimuli (which I believe I can argue for) makes the status of those concepts (in so far as they are to be employed as a priori principles in arguments) transcendent and metaphysical, at which point knowledge of them becomes subject to the same scrutiny under which he himself placed the concepts of God, Substance and Soul via a variation of the problem of induction or the problem of synthetic a priori judgements.

[rachMiel]

I am the sub-process of The Process. 
I am the tulpa and/or egregore. 
I am the world. 
I am the mirage. 
I am pure awareness. 
I am love. 

And the list goes on. Take yer pick! (Or better yet, open to all, pick none.)