The terms experience and consciousness are slippery, they are players in so many different games, and variously on the same or on different teams. For argument's sake take experience to refer to the totality of what it takes to make this portion of life what it is, failing any part of which it would not be the same, and take consciousness to refer to that part of it immediately acknowledged as mine. In this paradigm consciousness is the explicitly owned subset of experience. In a different paradigm the roles of these two terms could be reversed. Both parts are made of the same stuff and what stabilises consciousness is that it is confined to a certain scale, a certain granularity - there is a resonance or an eigenvalue - a discretising of a spectrum. Whatever that stuff is it contains its own subject or enjoyer, which means that it is ontologically strange since the subject does not have the same sort of plurality as the content, the subject even in difference is always one. Consciousness is the field of operation of a certain kind of rather coarse subject, but other realms of experience have different subjects in accordance with their different kinds of content, and yet all these subjects are somehow one. With whatever conscious experience comes to pass there is also the totality of experience, and the conscious subject is traversed by other subjects in different scales or dimensions that produce subtle resonances at the fringe of the explicit.