How it is possible for one who experiences to be aware of the experienced?
What is problematic here? The problem is that if we imagine a model containing one who experiences (subject) on one side, and its experiences on other side, and there is no relation between them, it would be impossible for subject to be directly aware of the experienced (sense, feelings, etc..), and it seems a fact that what is experienced is what we are aware of. Other model which seems possible is where experience will have its existence in the subject, that is, where experience would be part of the subject. One problem there would be that subject would have to be imagined as something which is different from the perception, but which also contains the perception. On other side the same perception (or what is experienced) would have to be “opened for interaction” to the outside “reality”. So experience/perception in such model is seen as come kind of connection between reality and the subject, and those two are seen as totally divided, connected just through the perception. So, such model ends with kind of duality, with things which are in most direct way part of subject (he experiences them directly), but on other hand they are not really part of subject (as they are changed by outside reality).
There is other problem with such model, that Kant pointed to… How it is possible for time to be part of our cognition, *and* ego (or subject, or one who experiences) to be experienced in time (changing in time)?
Only valid model which I can think of, which doesn’t have those problems, and which is almost implicated by the previous analysis, is that the subject is really just the part of the experience, that the subject has its existence just as abstraction of one (cognitive) whole. (I speak of cognitive whole, and not perceptual whole, as it is already speculated here that the whole contains the differentiations, and I will argue that those are the root of cognitive processes)
Of course there are other things which are connected to Subject like Will, and they would have to be explained as part of the cognitive whole in order to give previous assertion. But that would have to be done later, when we get over the concepts, meaning etc…
This is the main point where the model points to objectivity of the subject, which was mentioned when the notion of Spirit as something which objectively exists was mentioned… The “ego” or “me” is often seen as separate thing from the experiences, from the cognition, and separate from the “outside” reality …, and then the contradictions appear when we are presented with the facts that we are directly aware of perceptions, but those can’t be fully “in us” as they should be also changed by the “outside” reality. So when we try to do this separation of “ego” from reality we end-up with contradiction, which should be expected because the idea is non-sense from the start - goes against the principle that the part must have existence just as part of whole.
On other side in this model, the cognitive whole is seen as part of reality, and the subject is seen as a result. In what follows I will try to bring more specifications to the notion of subject as a part of the whole, to specify even more things about whole, and on the end to speculate about the connection between reality and the cognitive whole…