In the spirit of curiosity and playfulness I would like to respond with a bold claim:

The distinction between self and other is simply a concept. Certainly useful in many situations, but ultimately just one perspective - one tool at the mind’s disposal.

One could reasonably argue this is the central teaching of Buddhism. Alan Watts helped articulate these ideas to western audiences in many of his lectures:

“You see, the point is that an enormous number of things are going on inside us of which we are not conscious. We make a very, very arbitrary distinction between what we do voluntarily and what we do involuntarily, and we define all those things which we do involuntarily as things that happen to us rather than things that we do. In other words, we don’t assume any responsibility for the fact that our heart beats, or that our bones have such and such a shape.

If you become aware of the fact that you are all of your own body, and that the beating of your heart is not just something that happens to you, but something you’re doing, then you become aware, also—in the same moment and at the same time—that you’re not only beating your heart, but that you are shining the sun.”

I will respond with a bold claim of my own: vague platitudes such as this are a great way to instill a sense of learned helplessness that rationalizes suffering as "just the way the world is" while failing to acknowledge that the world can be changed to reduce the causes of suffering and not merely reduce the personal effect of suffering. This helplessness is perpetuated by those in positions of power as a means of effective societal control, which is to say, those who would stand to lose the most if their adherents realized the truth about who is the source of their suffering.