I am a fan of Dennett's view of self. I believe he produces better work on the mind than any other living philosopher.
He uses the analogy of a little man sitting in the middle of our head pulling levers. That's the way most people view the self. It's a sort of modern-cartesianism, I guess you could say.
He proposes that, largely because we have evolved in parts and in whole through logarithmic systems, our experience of the mind is similar. I'll sum it up briefly, but I won't argue for it. Dennett argues for it well, and I recommend reading him if you find my explanation interesting. We experience almost nothing per moment, but we experience many moments. That which does not exist needs no explanation, and a holistic experience of our surroundings does not exist, which is evident through even momentary introspection - you didn't realize a single item in your room until you read this sentence. I haven't read him in a while, and I really shouldn't botch a nice idea. Would anybody care to add?
I have slowly progressed, through exposure to more and more philosophy and through introspection, into an understanding of the self that is passive, rather than the almost universally accepted notion of activity. I do not have a body, but I am one. There are reasons that bodies behave how they do, and even medicine and the baby-science psychology have revealed most of this. How this translates into my noticing, or experiencing, is a mystery about which we do not even have broad strokes about what questions to ask in order to find the answer. We are farther than far away from that kind of understanding. I guess the idea of 'self' is an okay analogy for now, but taking it as reality is a leap in logic that I would never be willing to make.