The contrast between knowing that and knowing how, or mental knowing and enactive knowing doesn't quite catch the key distinction. Knowing how is too broad a category, perhaps; a spider knows how to weave a web and many other curious things besides that one admires without envying. Better to distinguish what you know by concepts from what you know only musically. The two are mutually untranslatable, but the latter is knowledge in an entirely satisfactory form. No need is felt to translate it in any way. It's also possible that there are forms of knowing that marry the two.

The same goes for place as for time; experiencing is always here, there is imaginary. This is simpler since you can sat that the actual locus of experience, whatever is going on, is deep in the brain, and if the brain is conveyed here and there in its little skull-house, the space in which that motion is taking place is nevertheless constituted in the same mind, in its busy department of background painting. And of course the same goes for the brain itself, at best it is known by hearsay. All of this comes down to another point for the identity of reality and dream. Even if the former is 'exogenously driven', the exogenous/endogenous distinction is also a mental construct - and mind is in no way confined to ()the concept of) the body. None of this prevents experience from having a structure, and a pretty potent one at that, being not just representation but also will, or care. Or better the other way around, not just care but also representation, its gay supplement.

How is it that experience is always the stationary now and yet only exists as temporalisation? The now does not flow, it cannot even be said to change, is necessarily the one identical now, yet from it there is experience which, while being nothing but that same now only arises as an extension, a flux, a flow by which anything known is known. The now is not the instant of the flow, it has nothing to do with any such moving image of time; whatever its nature that is not its dimension. Both sides of this paradox are fully evident but thought has no way to bring them together.

You never know anything from the inside, there is only a succession, not of thoughts but of eidolons, ideas in their most atomic form, subordinate to other ideas of self and other, of fundamental relations again subordinate to the idea of experience. The inside and the outside are again complementary ideas within this network of understanding. What is taken to be your intimate experience is defined by a particular concentration and limitation of relata invested in the same intense way as desire, and like desire is a universal structure that functions as the most extreme form of particularity. But there is a moment for each atom of experience when you seem to be fused with it without residue. In this instance the idea is functioning as an allegory of the self, of the experiencer. There is no interior because there is no experience of the experiencer beyond such an allegory continuously discarded as insufficient.

There is only experience and experience is made entirely out of meaning. You yourself are a meaning and are not the source of meaning; there is a single sphere of meaning, thus a single experience. You are a localisation of meanings, like a collection of books borrowed from a library. There is nothing special or unusual about this, it is simply the way that experience appears to perform itself relative to any such localisation. Everything that goes into your experience at each moment is an idea belonging to the sphere of ideas, there is nobody to own it. At most it is performed, instanced, given a fate. You are the fatality of the ideas in each instant of your life.

'Emergence' can play the role of great hope for materialism because it is viewed from the bottom up as if the possibilities for what can 'emerge' are random because entirely unpredictable. Instead it only indicates the limits of our mathematics. Think instead of the space of all possible emergent phenomena. It could well be, and likely is, very sparse and ruled by strong attractors; this is sometimes called evolutionary convergence. Only certain things can emerge and when they do they are assisted in every case by what amounts to downward causation. And the same pattern holds at every level going up. In other words what can and does emerge is fundamental to the type of world that exists. It is like physics but without the elegant mathematics that could describe it. This would mean that materialism and panpsychism are ultimately the same. Instead of mathematics to describe the telos of this complexification there is consciousness: experience is the mathematics of higher emergence, and as it evolves the nature of what is taken to be the substrate, including space and time, changes as well until the way up and the way down are one and the same.

There is a tremendous amount of silent intelligence in your embodiment that provides the precondition, or the setting, for this individual mind to occur. The disproportion between the two could not be greater. All the ingenuity and cunning that goes into a functioning brain whose conscious purposes are picayune and generally quite foolish. In the same way, transposed to the limited field of consciousness the senior awareness or pure witnessing is sacrificing itself to establish the erratic domain of a personal awareness that is vastly inferior to it. What is it about this desire wracked subject that makes it seem worthwhile? If it is a matter of living vicariously through the petty dramas and repetition compulsions of a will that cannot even constitute a self, or self-like centre, that cannot endure for more than a moment or two, it seems a pretty bad deal. If it is waiting for one of these selves to wake up to its true condition it probably has a pretty long wait ahead of it. Doubtless it doesn't much care about individual instances but just squanders a myriad of random assemblages and trusts to the laws of probability or the occasional breakthrough, somewhere, some time, some body.