I think it’s pretty clear invisibility does not make it so someone can’t see themselves or their gear. I think in a description that long, it would mention such a major negative effect of the spell, which is not immediately obvious. It goes out of its way to mention in the case where you cast it on someone else, that you can’t see the subject of the spell. It does not say if you cast it on yourself you can’t see yourself. I have seen several mentions of the potential hazards of multiple invisible or silenced characters in the party at the same time, but never once a discussion of the hazards of pointing your wand the wrong way since you can’t see it.
I think invisibility is the condition where others can’t see you or your gear, but you still can.
By the way if you could not see yourself, don’t you think someone would have researched an improved version where you could see yourself?
So
1) If Invisibility is cast upon you, then you are invisible. (by definition)
2) If something is invisible, then it cannot be seen, except by the subject of the invisibility. (by definition)
3) If invisibility is cast on you, you are the subject. (by definition)
4) Therefore, if someone casts Invisibility upon you, then you can see you. (from 1, 2, and 3)
Putting by definition and RAW after your arguments when the whole point is the rules are unclear does not help your argument.
