There is something that is not in experience but without which experience could not be, and which we know of only through certain persistent questionings which can never be adequately brought to intelligibility. This is why we keep inventing concepts such as being, happening, event, or presence, which seem for a while to take us closer to it but always lapse back into the echo-chamber of language. It is an odd notion that at its deepest core experience should be ordered logically, that is, divisible into parts which function in an ordered way in relation to each other. Reason, or analytic thought could then be used to penetrate some way below the surface of things. To say that there is a self for whom experience is, or who is the witness or actor of experience are examples of this kind of thinking. In fact nothing is known, but one looks to see if the chosen operative distinction has any legs; does it take you somewhere? To split experience into a knower and a known, or a subject and an object, or noesis and noema, is clearly a speculation and erroneous from the start. Everything placed in the subject pole is still something meant and so merely another kind of object. But it is also impossible to purify the object of all subjectivity, it being necessarily correlative to comportments, gestures, self-referential acts and so on which frame the very objectivity of the intended object. Of course the reliance on spatio-temporal metaphors of core and surface, inside and outside, firstness and secondness, freedom and consequence or other metaphors drawn from worlds of will or feeling, has already vitiated the inquiry. It come down to what do when all this is seen. The process is paralysed, so do we surrender the question in its metaphysical naivety, or do we hold to it even more closely?