Deborah said:
The question WHO AM I is not as important as the question WHY AM I?
I think that the answer to "who you are" unfolds as you discover "why you are." Maybe they are two sides of the same coin. Each of us determines the "why" part --or the meaning-- of our own existence. We do this through the course of MANY lifetimes and at many levels simultaneously. Thus, the
who in "who I am," or "who you are," is always evolving as we continuously re-define and redetermine our own purpose.
As you may have surmised, I'm very much an existentialist.

We are each co-creators with God, and the process of creation is endless, so there is no "final answer" to the "why" --or the purpose behind-- my existence, except what I choose to assign as my purpose. As I change the
why in "why I AM," the
who in "who I am" also changes. ...Does that make any sense?
Dogmatic ideas --especially those rooted in religious doctrines-- are the attempts of the outside world to define your purpose of existence for you (and thus also define the
who in "who you are"), instead of allowing you to create and define yourself. That is what is so stifling and pernicious about dogmatism. It is not creation at all. We are here to re-define ourselves and re-create ourselves anew. This is the core of spiritual evolution. That's why I believe that dogmatic doctrines inhibit evolution (or at least slow it down). The way I see it, "obedience" is never creation (unless you decide that you what to become the "creation of others").
The liberal-minded existentialist believes that since the universe is indifferent to man, man must assign to himself the meaning of his own existence. The cosmos does not assign a man his worth so that the man may find his absolute worth through himself. This is true Self-Realization. It creates authentic people who are individuals that recognize their own freedom, utilize their options, and accept their responsibility in self-creation. It also recognizes the need for all others to also be free. Queen, Allen (1999). Curriculum Practice in the Elementary and Middle School. Merrill/Prentice Hall. pp 66-68.
I found this a pretty interesting statement for a "college textbook"

!
Incidentally, when the above author said that the universe is "indifferent to man," I do not interpret this to imply that the universe does not
care about us. Rather, I think that the universe cares
so much that it grants us the ultimate freedom of defining and creating ourselves. I think that a better interpretation of the word "indifferent" would be "non-judgemental."