J C:
Setting aside any thoughts about Buddhist doctrine, I am unclear how 'my' feelings can be 'me.' I may have "conditioned oneself into experiencing life in a delusory manner" but it seems clear to me that [...]
Let's take a look!
J C:
I have no control over my feelings [...]
While feelings can certainly have a powerful momentum of their own, I have noticed that I do indeed have some influence over them. Sometimes I can't help getting upset or angry. But other times, I notice ok, I am being angry right now, this is human anger, this is not enjoyable nor helpful, any thinking I have will be clouded by this anger, so best to stop fueling "it"... and I manage to calm down. Or I take an easier approach and take a break to separate myself from the trigger, after which I calm down more easily, and then I can reflect on it and prevent it from going so far next time. So 'I' certainly have some control over 'my' feelings. If you find you have no control over your feelings you might want to do something about it.
J C:
[...] that they come and go randomly [...]
I don't know about randomly. There are usually really obvious triggers. Sometimes there are non-obvious triggers but that's what the investigation aspect is for. If you find you have no idea why your feelings come and go, you might want to investigate what triggers them. And I don't mean in a dependent-origination approach where this sensation triggered that sensation because of a) aversion or b) craving. That is not going to really help at all. I mean in a way which acknowledges that you are feeling emotions and that emotions aren't just a cluster of sensory inputs, e.g. 'I' am being angry right now, what is the anger about? What are the angry thoughts about? Why am 'I' invested in this anger? etc.
J C:
They don't, thankfully, that's true. 'I' don't last either, though.
J C:
[...] that I observe them and thus they can't be me.
This is a belief which you accepted at some point along your spiritual path. I know when I first heard this it made no sense, but eventually after a lot of meditating I found it to be true. However it is just a belief, not a fact. You can be conscious of being conscious. Thus you are simultaneously being conscious, while also being aware that you are conscious. That consciousness you are conscious of is indeed you, either the affective 'you' with regular consciousness, or the actual you in a PCE. This actual you part is intricately linked to the fact that you do actually exist, despite all the conditioning you've been doing to convince yourself otherwise. That you exist means you must die at some point, which nobody wants to really consider.
J C:
Do you or others who practice actualism not share them?
I'll speak only for myself but I am confident other actualists would have similar enough answers.
J C:
How does one experience or perceive one's feelings to be oneself?
It is a bit weird. Normally 'I' am dissociated anyway since 'I' think that 'I' *have* feelings, not that 'I' *am* those feelings. I'm not really sure how to answer this except that when there is a strong emotion 'I' consider the notion that 'I' am (or at least part of 'me' is) that feeling, as opposed to the feeling being something other than 'me', and I reflect on that. It helps bring insight and understanding into that particular part of 'me'.