'Experience is a window onto matters of fact which transcend experience'; but those matters of fact and their transcendence also belong to experience. Matters of fact are resolutions of experience within experience, they are convergences or collapses of experience as it observes or experiences itself. It is marvelously complex and consistent, it accounts for its own errors, for the seer and the seen, all of which bolsters the idea of transcendence as the only efficient explanation of the whole show. But it only needs explanation, or seems to need it, because of the limited sense in which you understand experience, and that in turn is based on the same idea as that of transcendence. Is there really such an idea? The whole trick is a begging of the question. And that too is just experience. You can't get used to being something so vast as to obviate all factuality that is not absolute and nameless presence.