I'm not GP but I'll give it a try: > You don't even have to take my word for it. Honest question: how not? > who would you not be if you weren't you? Depend

I'm not GP but I'll give it a try: > You don't even have to take my word for it. Honest question: how not? > who would you not be if you weren't you? Depending on how you parse the sentence, either "someone else" or "that's just a paradox". Essentially the concept of "me" as an entity is fundamentally flawed. Playing with the meanings of "me" and "not me" in a subjunctive form doesn't make the question very interesting (as in non-trite), to be honest. I guess the intent is not to be fresh but to be thought-provoking or similar, or setting the listener in a certain mindset? Still, sets my mind in the "meh" state. > Who are you not without that problem you are interested in solving? I'm not my problems. I'm also not not-my-problems. Actually I am not (I isn't?). I don't see how this helps with anything, though. Either way, your questions pose (to me) more philosophical thinking (which I already do, anyways) than mindbending or whatever. Maybe my mind is already bent... and I have to say it didn't go very well ;) A long time ago I came to the conclusion that these questions are merely shortcomings in how language and cognition works. Metaphysics, ontology (and even epistemology) are just fun puzzles with no solution, which I'm ultimately obliged to answer with "who the f--- cares". Kant was right. Not that anything you said is directly contradicted by Kant. In fact I'd say it fits very well within the idea that "human mind creates the structure of human experience". It's just never been really useful to me in any way. I really, really, want to know more of (and even believe in) your changework but, often being presented with vague ideas, no one has ever made a solid case on how it isn't, as GP said, charlatanry.