The move from the assertion 'there is experience' to 'there is my experience' (for some 'I') follows from unfolding what is already implicit in 'experience'. Logically this is question-begging, but the response could in turn be given that every non-phenomenological definition of experience is doomed to break down - an 'empirical' definition would after all be even more question-begging. Dwelling on the notion of experience, then, I find it to be ineluctably my experience - even if it is nominally your experience. The 'I' concerned is therefore already understood, while evidently not understood at all and not even experienced. On closer examination it is not so much about short-term memory and expectation as about a certain kind of spacing or perspective. The experiencer is before the experience in a sense that is as much spatial as temporal. I, or 'I' (is there a difference at this scale?) is a little way behind whatever fills experience, a little more here than any imaginable here, or such as to render every notional here into a there, again without precisely being anywhere. This is one reason why the self is sometimes referred to as the witness. The gap is not random, and although measurement makes little sense in this context, it has a definite gauge which forms one of the latent parameters in any lived experience. This gauge is relatively stable but can assume different values, perhaps in a discrete set like an energy spectrum. This speculation might provide a clue to the problem of the fusion of distinct experiences into an apparently seamless single experience, or in other terms into the granularity of experience. When closely contemplated experience is seen to resolve into a succession of isolated 'flashes' and hence to belong to a series of isolated experiencers, and yet on the normal macroscopic scale to belong to only one self. The difference lies in the gauge, a multitude of small gauge experiences combining into one of a larger gauge.