To what extent is our self defined by our boundaries and not by that which is contained within them? By this I mean, if you were to take that edge of self defined by your skin, the front line between self and not-self, and somehow turn it upon itself so that there could be no experience of other, no perception of that beyond your physical boundary, you would agree that the self 10 years later would be unrecognizeable as the same being as the self which had not been so folded inward, would you not? In which case the definition of self is in large part dependant on the physical experience of other and your skin, being the organ of perception and boundary of definition is therefore what defines who you are... perhaps even moreso than your brain or genetic structure.
Or is this all nonsense and is the source of your experiences meaningless in the face of the seat of your perception. Is it rather that your body itself is primarily "other" and your brain, or perhaps just the part of it in which you "feel" that you perceive, really your self, in which case folding your skin in upon itself would simply have served to limit the variety of perception available to you and produced just what one would have expected, a self reduced in scope from its alternate to the exact degreee in which it's perception was limited.
Am I the sum of my perceptions - either in whole or as expressed through an only-tangentially-related pattern unique to Gillen even if another being were presented with my exact sequence of experiences?
(well, it was either open with that or 'What is Virtue?'...)