You speak as if your words are absolute and undeniable truths.
Elsewhere you wrote that we are not the inner voice (or some such), but we have an inner voice.
That's a good example of how choosing different words can result in us relating to issues very differently, even disagreeing on issues of semantics to the point where we become bitter enemies.
Are you your left hand (along with every other component that makes up 'you')? Or do you have a left hand?
Do you see that whichever way we decide to describe it depends on the context?
If the context is your emotional state vs your physical appendages, you might say that you have a left hand, and it is perfectly meaningful. For the purposes of that moment, the hand is not part of what constitutes 'you' at that moment.
If the context is playing basketball, where your left hand is a key component of what makes up your identity at that moment, it is more meaningful to say that your left hand is
you. It's not something you have
, but something you are
But the key point I am trying to make is that these two different ways of perceiving and thinking about something can lead us to extract different philosophies from it. In some cases even conflicting philosophies.