LoL, I finally understand what this experience was about or so I think. The "Phenomenological homunculus".
I agree that there is an ongoing inertial process happening within the body. In fact, I think that the mistake was on my side because I don't think this was even about impermanence lmao, but about a psychological impression:
Why does experience appear as if there were a separate subject behind these processes, observing them, controlling them, and remaining the same throughout them?
Pay attention! Now, I am not saying that the biological evolutionary process is "impermanent" or non-existent (This wasn't even what I wanted to talk about in the first place, I should have thought about this more thoroughly at the time. My bad), but why does life presents itself as if there was a subject separated from the process itself?
The experience of seeing through that was what threw me off balance when it happened. But as I said previously, I don't think I had the words to describe what happened very accurately.
Why does that entire system present itself as if there were a controller behind it?
Why does it seem as though there is something that exists outside of change and observes that change?
Because the problem would not simply be: “The self remains.” But rather: “The self is on one side and the process is on the other.”
------------------------
GGWP: “The process is precisely what I am: a biologically and psychologically continuous process with enormous causal inertia.”
JayJay: “Yes, but notice that the thought ‘I am this process’ is itself another event within that process. It arises dependently on the organism, its history, its brain, its environment and current conditions. So why posit an additional GGWP behind the process who independently owns or controls it? The organism can have genuine agency without requiring a separate controller outside the causal process.”
-------------------------
It doesn’t seem like the experience was:
“I discovered that the body changes and therefore the self is not permanent.”
It seems much more like:
“For a moment, the experience very clearly revealed the separation between a supposed subject and the processes it supposedly controls.”
And so the inquiry would be:
Does that separation truly belong to the structure of the experience, or is it a way in which the process itself shapes itself?
