Perhaps a bit woo woo but...

Mingle

You ever been in a deep meditation and felt like you had thoughts that didn't identify with you? I mean I found myself searching for my "self" by trying to notice the thinker and as soon as I notice the thinker I find that that itself is a thought. Every thing that crops up is just as meaningless as the last. I just give it some sort of identity and as soon as I go "that's me" I realise it is gone. My self simply takes the form of whatever "nudge" enters my mind. I think of a packet of crisps I become that thought and as soon as I notice that thought I have become another. Deep huh?
Anyway the woo woo came when I went deeper and sorta dropped any self image I had attached to my thoughts and gained that of a different one. Is that crazy?

grackle

@Mingle. Not crazy. Endless causes and conditions keep the conveyer belt engaged. Its a lot less wear and tear just to note those passing thoughts. Otherwise they can have quite a long shelf life.

Shoshin

@Mingle
Some food for thought to chew over...

The Consciousness of Self
~William James~
The consciousness of Self involves a stream of thought, each part of which as ' I ' can 1) remember those which went before, and know the things they knew ; and 2) emphasize and care paramountly for certain ones among them as 'me,' and appropriate to these the rest. The nucleus of the 'me' is always the bodily existence felt to be present at the time. Whatever remembered- past-feelings resemble this present feeling are deemed to belong to the same me with it. Whatever other things are perceived to be associated with this feeling are deemed to form part of that me's experience; and of them certain ones (which fluctuate more or less) are reckoned to be themselves constituents of the me in a larger sense, —such are the clothes, the material possessions, the friends, the honors and esteem which the person receives or may receive. This me is an empirical aggregate of things objectively known. The I which knows them cannot itself be an aggregate, neither for psychological purposes need it be considered to be an unchanging metaphysical entity like the Soul, or a principle like the pure Ego, viewed as 'out of time.' It is a Thought, at each moment different from that of the last moment, but appropriative of the latter, together with all that the latter called its own. All the experiential facts find their place in this description,unencumbered with any hypothesis save that of the existence of passing thoughts or states of mind. The same brain may subserve many conscious selves, either alternate or coexisting; but by what modifications in its action, or whether ultra-cerebral conditions may intervene, are questions which cannot now be answered
If anyone urge that I assign no reason why the successive passing thoughts should inherit each other's possessions, or why they and the brain-states should be functions (in the mathematical sense) of each other, I reply that the reason, if there be any, must lie where all real reasons lie, in the total sense or meaning of the world. If there be such a meaning, or any approach to it (as we are bound to trust there is), it alone can make clear to us why such finite human streams of thought are called into existence in such functional dependence upon brains. This is as much as to say that the special natural science of psychology must stop with the mere functional formula. If the passing thought be the directly verifiable existent which no school has hitherto doubted it to be, then that thought is itself the thinker, and psychology need not look beyond. The only pathway that I can discover for bringing in a more transcendental thinker would be to deny that we have any direct knowledge of the thought as such. The latter's existence would then be reduced to a postulate, an assertion that there must be a knower correlative to all this known; and the problem who that knower is would have become a metaphysical problem. "With the question once stated in these terms, the spiritualist and transcendentalist solutions must be considered as prima facie on a par with our own psychological one, and discussed impartially. But that carries us beyond the psychological or naturalistic point of view.

lobster

@Mingle said:
Is that crazy?

No. It is the inherent emptiness of the so called 'self' and its dependent origination or delusionary nature.

You are in the process/meditation of seeing the matrix/fabrication/attachment for yourself.
Iz Buddha plan.
http://path.homestead.com/heartsutra.html