It is not just that experience is varied but that it is variation itself. The term variation is taken here to mean both change in general, unpredictable, unordered innovation, and variation in the sense of variations on a theme, that is, changes that unfold the possibilities of a defined central notion, that deviate from their notion or theme as wildly as possible while still 'respecting' it in some way. None of this is conceivable without reference to a constant term, implicit in the former case, more or less explicit in the latter. What I am is what is most deeply constant in this flux of experience, and what therefore cannot itself be experienced, but without which there could not be any experience whatsoever. This is not the whole story however, experience doesn't just float in unmoving space, but is always my experience and therefore essentially includes within itself, within each atom or molecule of itself, a reference to what is beyond or prior to itself. Could it even be that in the extraordinary complexity of the variational structure of experience, with its loops and echoes, splits into and collapses of distinct levels etc., the reference to the unchanging "I" is a constructed artifact, bootstrapped from something so much more primitive as to be without any directly experiencable correlate at all? You have encountered such ideas before, but it seems that however far back into the un-intentional such speculation is pushed a sort of catastrophe-creation, a big bang, of self-reference is required, and at a level so prior to temporality and categorisation that it can no longer be held as in any sense sub-atomic, but must be the whole damn show!