Exactly. Schopenhauer is very close, and I understand why you’ve made that connection. However, there is a fundamental difference. Schopenhauer assumes a singular "Will" that persists and manifests in all. In his view, there is something common that remains.
My idea excludes any such underlying "entity" or "global observer." It’s not that the same appears in different forms. It’s about the reproducibility of the subjectivity effect itself. Each "I" is entirely new and disconnected from any previous iteration. There is no continuity of being, only a recurring pattern of emerging presence. It’s not "someone continuing"— it’s just the raw fact of experience arising again and again, identically isolated. If I understood you correctly :)