That experience is what it is, and you don't know (yet) what is or what it could be(come), because of what it truly is, in such a way that they belong inseparably together, or else it bears only a secondary and childish, folkish, fabled, relation to what it truly is? It is not a matter of settling this question according to the side you happen to favour, or even alternating between the two sides, but of seeing that this uncertainty is the very expression in this time of what experience truly is. The tension in this uncertainty is what pushes every kind of mere or totalised experience beyond the limits that it has set for itself. What experience is passes necessarily through the self, through selfness, without thereby proving or being limited to the psychological self, so that whatever experience truly is takes in and features this twist of selfness. That is the underlying insight of panpsychisms, but these offer only a way station and not an end of the inquiry.