I propose a threefold definition of what it means to be a "self":Which process of the universe are you not part of? How many non-autonomous (of yours) occurred in order for you to be born, nutured, clothed, educated, speak, work, think and effect others in turn? What physical, mental or spiritual aspect of you is not interconnected with the kosmos? Which parts of your consciousness are distinct or unconnected/determined from your nation, culture, religion, family, language, shared history? Which of those could be disappeared and your "self" still exist. In which of these does the complete, distinct, essence of your "self" exist? How can you create an organism wholely distinct and autonomous? What would it breathe, eat, think and feel; what experience would it have solely of its own?1. A single, autonomous, conscious being, distinct from others. (i.e., no "group mind" or consciousness).
2. An awareness of ourselves as being what is described in #1.
Who is it that is aware of your "self"? 3. Memory of what we have experienced.
If you lost all your memory of what you have experienced up to now, would you cease to exist? Would there be no "self" then remaining?
I don't deny our interdependence, D, but if you think you are one with your toaster oven, you've got real problems. ;o) I'm in relationship with things outside myself, but there is a distinct difference between not-me (outside my skin) and ME (inside my skin).
Who is it that is aware of your "self"?
"I" am self-aware. If you deny the existence of a "self", who is doing the denying?
If you lost all your memory of what you have experienced up to now, would you cease to exist?
Yes and no and yes. Physically, I would appear the same. But on the level of "mind" I would not be "me". Consider the case of the alzheimer's patient who has progressed to the point of catatonia. They have lost all sense of identity. Ultimately, though, on the level of "soul", we are still the same. After death, the alzheimer's patient is restored in mind and body.