The self is recognition of subjective perception. I think that the self is defined through recognition of differences from the outside as a product of one's perception, and mind.
I believe the self is controlled through actual constituents of the organism, like the workings of the brain and other systems. However, to say that the reality of the self if affected purely from the actual workings of the entity's material means that the self must change as the material changes.
Does this mean that the self is never the same in comparison to relative instances? No, the self only evolves, it doesn't change. Although it is interesting to look at it this way. Have you ever looked at a piece of writing that you wrote from many years ago, and questioned how the :devilish: could I have written that, it's awful.
Then it becomes a question of what is the difference between the self back then and a different person who would be more adequate to gauge that piece of writing now, or back then?
The past allows for relative perception to be possible, the mind can't grasp all things at once and relate them in a single instance.
Perhaps the consciousness is a product of the self recognizing relative instances, like some sort of perception of time's causal construct. I mean for something that isn't conscious, their knowledge of what will happen to their entity is governed by forces depicting its actuality, so in a sense it has an absolute path because the self can't control its own causality.
The self is just a way to deviate or delineate from the absolute, not that any material is absolute of course. The self relies on the mind and consciousness. Maybe somebody else could counter some of my assumptions though.:ouch: