user-1: Which of the seven fold reasons does this fall under?

The conventional self is not different to all its parts (is composed only of parts) but not the same as any part (does not depend on any part)

This seems to get around the first two reasons, as well as being a reasonable description of my perceptual life; and, arguably, is a reason to think that the self cannot be destroyed (there is always another part to lose), given it lacks substance and cannot be annihilated.
It seems to be completely coherent, so I can't imagine for a moment that no-one a Buddhist has ever argued with has conceived of the self this way. So, why is it wrong: and has any Buddhist claimed the conventional self is like this?

Not just that every part has a part, but that every part is one part only.

user13709: Identification with consciousness of an infinity of parts and non-parts is incomplete:

MN1:16.1: They perceive the dimension of infinite consciousness as the dimension of infinite consciousness.
MN1:16.2: But then they identify with the dimension of infinite consciousness …
MN1:16.3: Why is that?
MN1:16.4: Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

Also consult DN1, which describes 62 grounds for getting caught up in theories of self and cosmos.

DN1:3.70.1: Now, when those ascetics and brahmins theorize about the past and the future on these sixty-two grounds, it is not possible that they should experience these things without contact.
...
DN1:3.72.2: All of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.

Rather than look at all the parts or not-parts, perhaps we should best examine the first four words of the seven reasons.

The self is not ...

Without self, what reason would there be to look for parts or not parts?

-1: <p>Which of the <a href="https://theinevitableecstasy.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/22334436-chandrakirti-the-sevenfold-reasoning.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">seven fold reasons</a> does this fall under?</p>
<ul>
<li>The conventional self is not different to all its parts (is composed only of parts) but not the same as any part (does not depend on any part)</li>
</ul>
<p>This seems to get around the first two reasons, as well as being a reasonable description of my perceptual life; and, arguably, is a reason to think that the self cannot be destroyed (there is always another part to lose), given it lacks substance and cannot be annihilated.</p>
<p>It seems to be completely coherent, so I can't imagine for a moment that no-one a Buddhist has ever argued with has conceived of the self this way. So, why is it wrong: and has any Buddhist claimed the conventional self is like this?</p>
<hr />
<p>Not just that every part has a part, but that every part is one part only.</p>
 13709: <p>Identification with consciousness of an infinity of parts and non-parts is incomplete:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato#mn1:16.1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN1:16.1</a>: They perceive the dimension of infinite consciousness as the dimension of infinite consciousness.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato#mn1:16.2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN1:16.2</a>: But then they identify with the dimension of infinite consciousness …<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato#mn1:16.3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN1:16.3</a>: Why is that?<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato#mn1:16.4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN1:16.4</a>: Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also consult DN1, which describes 62 grounds for getting caught up in theories of self and cosmos.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato#dn1:3.70.1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN1:3.70.1</a>: Now, when those ascetics and brahmins theorize about the past and the future on these sixty-two grounds, it is not possible that they should experience these things without contact.<br />
...<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato#dn1:3.72.2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN1:3.72.2</a>: All of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Rather than look at all the parts or not-parts, perhaps we should best examine the first four words of the seven reasons.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The self is not ...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Without self, what reason would there be to look for parts or not parts?</p>
