Which process of the universe are you not part of?
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).
(Though it's a rich vein, I'll skip over the distinction between your "autonomous" before and "interdependent" above)
I share mass with the toaster, I share a limbric system with my cat and can experience an emotion with her, in that experience subject/object are dual only if perceived such. If you wish to debate for the point of duality of experience, you can try your wits against thinkers even in the west such as William James or Bertrand Russell.
"Consider the case of the alzheimer's patient who has progressed to the point of catatonia. "
A functioning mind is necessary for consciousness, but is not consciousness. A functioning mind can be conscious of itself as a horny dog, or it can be conscious of itself as a spiritual being. A functioning mouse brain is only aware of… We agree that a body/mind is a requirement for "self" but the two do not comprise an identity relationship - unless you have become positivist or joined The Church of Scientism on me. The usual framework is nested hierarchies of existence: (matter(body(mind(consciousness(soul(spirit)soul)consciousness)mind)body)matter). Or some variation (remarkably consistent across religions. Healthy humans are comprised all levels in constant development (though conscious awareness may reside in different parts - at different times. When absorbed in playing tennis, "Angelo" IS (his consciousness of himself) is his body. I would say you are identifying (in this discussion) as who you are as "body/mind/consciousness." To you, that is you, that is where your conscious awareness of who Angelo is. So this is the Angelo you expect will be the Angelo that continues (sorta) after-death.
there is a distinct difference between not-me (outside my skin) and ME (inside my skin).
Yes, your skin and physical body have simple location; in one location there is your skin in another there it is not. That is the way with material objects. If you are saying you have a body that consists of matter that is not your toaster, we agree. But we're not discussing your body, but your self.
Yes, you have skin, is that where your self resides? No skin, no self? I'm explaining by absurdity here, not attempting to redicule you. Skin, bones, nerves, brain cells, endocrine system… which is you? Which part of your self resides where; which is lost if your arm is cut off? If you go anywhere near here, you enter the long-debunked fallacy of reductionism and materialism. Move up just a level to mind, then another to that transcending mind and then to the "process" or force that governs what "exists". You are a part of that as much as a wave is part of the ocean; you are claiming your drop is distinct, autonomous (though interdependent) and naming that "Angelo's Self". And further saying that that drop will re-appear, reform in an existence without time or space. What wave in what ocean will this drop of Angelo's self being bobbing at what frequency in what direction?
Let's imagine, look, for a moment beyond the sea - part of the planet - past the solar system and stars and universe, to the unseen into which all of this came into existence. Are you not part of all that, that (call it process for a start) that one thing going on? Is your self, yes, distinct from this (not the same as its entirety), but not separate from it? Is this where we derail? The difference between distinct from and separate from? Who are you? A leaf or a part of a tree? I maintain that as your understanding, spiritually, grows, you can experience yourself, directly experience, as part of the tree and more and more, without boundaries, (the boundary of skin for the most tiny example.) You are the part of all this. You are the part that knows it exists. The part that can say "How awesome thou art!"
Who is it that is aware of your "self"?Anyway, back to the subject: I do not deny the existence of "self" but what most think their true self is. For example, it is not their thoughts, these can be observed objectively, therefore they are not all of the self. The self is not located in a specific part of the body. Another common misconception is that self has simple location: it is "there.""I" am self-aware. If you deny the existence of a "self", who is doing the denying?
I asked first. :). But of course the follow up is if there is something that is aware of something else (self), then there is another awareness other than "self." Here we can go off further…
I will answer this far for now: The self that can observe your thoughts, without being them, the self that is observing your thoughts is closer to your true self and it exists in a glimpse of eternal time.
Eternal because it observes without concepts and without judging, controlling or discoursing on the thoughts it observers. To do so, it must be contantly in the present moment: now, now, now, now, continually. No: "I just thought," no "That thought reminds me… tommorrow I hope…"
Bare awareness of the present moment. The only time that truly exists. Past is memory and regrets; future is hopes and fears. No one has ever lived a moment in the past or a moment in the future, past and future are mental experiences, experiences occuring now, not existing in a real time=future/past. You can only exist in the only time that exists in reality: the ever-present now. Past and future are concept useful for many things, but they do not really exist as "time" only as concepts and thoughts.
[Imagine for a moment what this after-death self in eternity- outside time - will do with memory and past and future.]
Exist in bare awareness in the present moment, observe reality without pre-condition or judgement; notice "who" this "self" is and where, or if, it ends and "not-self" begins. Your "self" is there without need of past or future, they are not real as we think of our time (remember that neither time nor space are absolute qualities; what is the relative time in eternal and absolute beingness?
I have a thought experiment that may spark a better understanding of what I am trying to communicate. Perhaps it won't, perhaps another time.
thank you for your reply, very much.
I'll reply more later when I have had a chance to read through your reply in greater depth.