Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:
> I cannot make sense of
> non-experience. And no one has yet shown what a non-experience is.
Try this. Hang a belt by its buckle to a hook on the wall. You experience (mostly visually in the selected example) the hook. You experience the belt. You experience the wall. Etc. Now you say, "The hook causes the belt to remain suspended." You haven't experience that: you have *thought* it. You can't experience a relationship but only the things related. The relation (all relations, including causal) you have to think, not experience. Marx makes this observation somewhere in the *Grundrisse* I believe.
Carrol