Nature consists of natural kinds of things, many instances of few kinds, which interact according to strict laws which can be expressed in mathematics. Mathematical objects are posited by the mind and their relations proceed according to strict laws invented along with the objects by the mind. You cannot have mathematics without this self-giving of its rules, without the laws of logic. And so the laws discovered in nature, being mathematical point to a self-giving which is not itself in nature. If there is a law of laws its domain is equally in mind and in nature.

The sense of not quite existing, of being on the way to existing or to prove your existence by some feat, or mark or expression is at the same time purely with reference to yourself. To assert your existence to the world is only a way of proving it to yourself, as if that which truly exists and which judges your efforts is only another part of yourself, forgotten, inaccessible, closed off since birth, haunting and misrecognised.

Are you a self-aware subject in a world of objects, thrown into such a world if you like to put it that way? Are these objects, that are already there enough to trigger the move from freely interacting with them to this sense of yourself and the peculiar, the paradoxical subject-object, object-subject of self awareness? Doesn't it require something more, being faced with your choice of action, or whether to act at all, that you are called upon to act? This would make nonsense of solipsism. Empirically, of course, this is always the case, but isn't it also so of necessity? Do AI's lack this? Doesn't their whole existence consist of being summoned?

Perception, representation, is a form of will; that is the kind of being that we are, our seeing is a grasping, a prehension, a preparation to move towards, to take, to know. And in the same way our will is an apprehending, a taking as, in order to. The limit of our world is the limit of our will, what we might do, or could do, or would do. We are always implicated in the world, never a pure bystander, always with an interest, hidden from others, hidden from ourself.

Experience is not just the invisible container of the world but is almost all of its content, almost all of what it is about. All the more so in that what is inexperienceable is the experience of the other. This is not only the empiricism of life but also its intuitionism - everything else melt into this, even the air.

Life is like a dream not because it is inconsistent and full of paradoxes, but simply because it is experience, from beginning to end, without a seam and cannot be anything else. The experience is filled with inexorable fatalities, with solid matters ready to crush you, devour you, with realities that must be tested and tested again, but only in the experience, not as the experience. As experience it is of the same weightless non-substance, uniform throughout, profoundly not-real and untestable.

The idea that experience serves he universe's or God's desire to know itself, as it were, to enter into the detail of itself, that that is the purpose of experiencing is another version of qualia theory, only now the elementary particles are not the measurable individual qualia, but something much more mysterious and interconnected, molecules of experience. Does this make any sense at all? Experience may be manifestly finite, but can it be delimited? Isn't it always open-ended, doesn't it dissolve completely on closer inspection?