As your experience this is accompanied with a knowing reflection of itself which is not explicit but made up out of a complex coordination of contextual know-hows and anchoring references which constitute the positioning and orienting background, the contextual feed. Because this is not an ordinary object of scrutiny the language used to describe it is convoluted and abstract, but it is so in proportion to how ordinary and unnoticed this accompaniment is. There is nothing to stop you turning attention to it, but also nothing to draw attention to it either, as if it was designed to be ignored. Of course the line between the action and the accompaniment is blurred, but it has to do with the kinds of content that are taken to be self-reflections. When you do or suffer something, anything, there is a reflection of the idea of your process in the background of the central or discursive awareness of that moment. There is a kind of ontological deceit in this reflecting structure, which is in excess of its function, which appears to be simply to underwrite flexibility of response to unpredictability. In having to deal with a world in which interpretation has equal status as event this kind of multiple relay structure needed to arise. No one said anything about Being, and yet Being imposed itself, as if through a loophole in the program. You only have intellectual blindsight to go on here, and you have to surrender all motives. Given all of this, can you pick the pearl out of the oyster without using your hands, or the golden needle out of the haystack?