If the world's existence is existence in a mind, if these are the same thing, then at some minuteness of examination the world should exhibit a mind-like character. Whether it does so or not is not clear - it depends on what you mean by mind-like - and on what you mean by exhibit, since any thing seen, even by way of theoretical prosthetics, is only a reflection of the inner, or transcendental, nature of what is seeing. And again, how do you know what is mind-like, your own mind being only a very limited sample. But it is the same as saying that regardless of the structure of any mind, the range of possible minds, or mind-like embodied subjects, being unlimited, everything is ultimately for a subject, which can only be One Subject, so that what is really at stake is that you are directly 'connected' to the core of reality by the back door, by the upstream of every possible upstream.

As for taking the Subject position, it is impossible to have any interest in doing so, much less actually do so. Interest of any kind only goes as far as the soul, that strange intermediate entity. Self and soul are both unequivocally absolute and would consume each other with no remainder. Soul is movement, self the unmoved mover. There is no common measure but soul's trajectory is to find out how to bring itself into right relation with its prior.

The simulation hypothesis, like its more esoteric cousin the many-worlds hypothesis are immediately known to be absurd once you are actually in the standpoint that puts the subject prior to the object - so that they form a reduction to absurdity of the opposite stance. The former at least follows almost perfectly from materialism or naturalism as soon as there is an acknowledgment of subjective reality, now become reducible. It is a perfect fit for a certain class of very contemporary metaphysics that is both materialist and accepting of mental reality. You can find out where you are by how peremptorily you reject it, so that it s something like our version of the 'mu' koan. If weakly perfect virtualisation is possible then it is inevitable, and if it is inevitable then the moment you admit your Cartesian subjectivity you are almost surely in a simulation. To which on must only shout 'no!'

Will is what terminates in feeling, a change in this core feeling you might call beingness, otherwise an oxymoron; beingness is not being and is also not-being. The accrual of such feeling, as if it was a substance as if it were your stuff, the stuff of you, everything you are stuffed with, your entire history but distilled into a single taste. Will is to make it more, but by the same action it might also become less, and besides it becomes less anyway, like a kind of fuel that is burned. The best way of being you know is also the way to suffer, to lose this beingness, which still makes more of it against your will, another's being say. You are this logic of feeling, its precise mechanism, escapement, but whatever you are is just what you are not, or since you were not there to not be, just 'are not'.

Understanding is, or you could say, has evolved to be, ancillary to will and thus is limited in scope by the saliencies of the practical. On the other hand, the underlying categorial structures of any recognisable understanding are limited in number and are in this sense like those of computability. There may seem to be, or possibly be, or merely required to be, higher forms of understanding incomprehensible to us - as some might say would be needed for understanding our own minds, or brains - but all such qualitative distinctions resolve, as with computability, into differences of speed and memory, that is, differences in degree. So there are no in principle incomprehensible forms of understanding. Schopenhauer gets to the nub of this when he asserts that the end of all possible understanding is reached when it liberates itself from the will, that is from its own motives. What we see with the currently baroque explosion of critique is not a natural barrier to understanding but a refusal to admit that the nd has long been reached - the will's revenge on its prodigal child.

Your actions and reactions over the span of life construct the prison of character, but every action and reaction is already the belated expression of latent character, of a defining flaw. Being half aware of this is itself a core component of character and so by opposing yourself or laughing at yourself you become yourself; trying to escape drives you further in - this is true in the great middle realm, that of putrefaction, and so is a matter neither for humour nor lamentation.

Granularity of experiencing is bewilderingly lacking in any underlying continuity when it comes in at a certain low pitch of affective attunement, in which case it is of the nature of suffering. If and when attunement changes, then, as the clouds dissipate and the sky is again visible, the continuity of witnessing is restored and tension is released. Everything depends on that affective pitch over which you have little control. That you are the seat of affect, which can indifferently be called dukha or jouissance - positive and negative valence amounting to the same - is another prior enablement, a setting of foundation. It is not a ground because it is not conceptual, feeling is rooted in prior feeling with no beginning. You see it only from the side, your seeing is to the side of it as centre.