We ask "How are you doing?" or "How is it going?" or variants of these, expecting, if more than just a formulaic reply, an indication of how you are feeling, a qualitative response rather than an instrumental one: "fine", "pretty well", "wonderful", "not so great, actually", rather than something like, "just by habit" or "very intently" or "Oh, by surrendering to (or by fighting madly against) the current." The question "How are you feeling?" to which these answers would seem better matched, sounds a note of concern, it is a question for the sickroom, and actually refers to feeling in quite a different way, in a narrower temporal perspective. These idioms encode the understanding of existence as ongoing and temporalising process, as does the word for 'to experience'- erfahren. What remains vaguely ambiguous is whether it is you doing it or whether it is being done by the 'it', and whether it is an action or a feeling. The state of things it describes is closer to an action, but if we want to say what it is we naturally resort to the language of feeling which solidifies both the feeling and the subject of that feeling. Now, say you are engaged in meditative self-inquiry, dwelling on "Who am I?". The immediate response that comes up is an appeal to feeling, to find what is felt here, as if it accepted that the question is aimed at an existing substance, the feeling being the evidence, the evident-ness of the existent. This would be to fall for the convention of thought, sliding over the metaphor, rather one should proceed like the autist responding to "How do you do?" - to find what it is in the I-ness or the I-ing that could possibly answer to, and be identical with, the who?-ing.