Every thought or element of experience is a sort of thing in itself and quite apart from any possible account of it in neurological language. It is a thing present here at this moment and absent at that one. Two people sitting side by side in a park may look at the same tree which forms for a time the subject of their conversation and the context of their remarks about it may be botanical, horticultural, aesthetic, personal or many other things. The tree moves in and out of their attention. What is occurring? There are two streams of experience and each contains a marker for tree, for this particular tree, but they are different experiences of it, although related to each other. "Notice the way the colour changes along the length of that branch", or "I proposed to your mother under that tree". For each of them the experience of the tree becomes modified as the conversation proceeds but they never merge, they remain two different experiencings of a tree. There are speakable components in experience, things that can be pointed out, they are things in so far as they can enter into the experience of the other person, in so far as they can be conveyed. There is a distinction but no clear demarcation between matters in relation to the object, the tree, and matters in relation to the other person. All of these are marked on a larger mental map. Some aspect of the tree experiences of each person remain unspeakable. Even if you yourself can point to this aspect at a certain time within your own mental world you cannot be sure that repeated instances of it are possible, and so it cannot be given a general meaning consistent with speakability, for all that it is intimate, familiar and structured. There may be a synaesthesic quality to such an experience, but it also might rest on the noetic pole in experience, the act of knowing, either way, it has an elusive objectivity. Some poetry seeks to and more of less succeeds in evoking the neotic dimension, some phenomenologists can also surprise us by how far they seem to be able to penetrate into it, their achievment being as much poetry as philosophy. The noetic however can never become entirely noematic, there would need to be another level of noesis behind it, but by being objective it is already partially meaning. It is positive content, the awareness of the life we consume in having this or that experience. This does not reach to the subjective which is both unspeakable and contentless. Every experience opens on the subjective, but nothing can be said of it but that it is not objective in any way at all.