Is this concept of Non-self correct?

** > I was trying to figure out the meaning of Non-self one day and > stumbled upon this idea. Please bear with me as this is a bit long... ** There are four great elements which are responsible for all conceivable objects and forms. If we take a human being, we have a body made of the 4 great elements and a consciousness. As we know there is no such thing called a person beyond the grammatical meaning, therefore neither mind or body is a person or a soul or any such thing. Let's expand this to a universal level, the same way a body host a consciousness, the universe hosts all consciousnesses. So the assumption here is that 4 great elements provide the infrastructure for the birth of a consciousness. if we forget the identities like human,animal,heavenly,etc, what we have is a sea of 4 great elements that facilitate the existence of all so called "beings". this shows an uncanny resemblance to what we call a being. **- Allow me to elaborate -** A body is a housing for a consciousness, the body consist of the 4 elements. The universe is a housing for consciousnesses, the universe consist of the 4 elements. Take into account that according to the teaching, the consciousness is not a permanent one, it is explained as a static that occurs and ceases with every though,recognition,comparison,etc. Taken as a static, a consciousness does not even last a second. Bearing this in mind, allow me to end the question. * > If consciousness is a static like phenomenon, and the body taken out > of its uniformed identity resembles the universe itself, can one find > that the non-self idea within this context? > > > * ***I know that this is very philosophical, but this is how Buddhism's discussions have happened in the canon and the only way to discuss > deeper concepts. as i expecct my friends here to be more than > signposts that point directions, i have asked this here and i hope the > question is not going to be flagged or deleted because of its long and > philosophical nature***.**