When you remember some object of past attention or event or action participated in you remember this as you having experienced it, you are remembering the experiencing. When the object or event is in the present, is happening now, then it goes beyond your experiencing, it is 'it' that is there in actuality, since you can be sharing the object or event with another or can call there attention to it; there can be a common attention, but there need not necessarily be. The very idea of 'experiencing' is based on a separation from what is going on, so that it is understood as happening for you. Such separation being temporal most of all. Notions of self and of consciousness are interpretations of such lived phenomena, or components of such interpretations. Do they have any other basis? Does the 'experiencedness' of an object or event as in memory have the same kind of being as a memory or as an immediate presence? The first alternative leads to a regress and the second to an impossible objectivity (as if you could point out your experiencing as a common object.)