Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

To answer your Q, I can only refer to Heidegger who differentiates between 'being' and 'authentic being' , the latter seeming to be a description of your 'self aware subject'. Such a subject knows full well that he is influenced by contextual perceptal set yet choses to ignore it. Needless to say, such glimpses of 'authentic being' were for Heidegger rare. The 'subject' I am talking about (the experiencer/observer) is evoked by a temporary cessation of 'seamless coping' which triggers 'languaging behavior' which defines a communicative context.. The languager is not a neutral commentator, he is negotiating 'reality'. The relevent analysis unit is at the social level, not the psychological/individual level (bearing in mind previous references of mine to 'the committee nature of self').
I therefore do not place 'the subject' as 'the source of experience'. I place the evoked subject as languager, the content of which activity we might call 'experience reporting'.

Another interesting aspect of being human is that first borns and infants require human touch. Without it, they grow up with no emotion. Also, https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/06/22/helpless-at-birth-why-human-babies-are-different-than-other-animals/

...isn't experience previous to any of that? How come? All social negotiation is experiencing also, your phenomenology of social behaviour is not at the base of the ladder...this is why I cannot find any other concept to further reduce the essence of Being to its building blocks. You think all is relative but remember Einstein, where was postulated the speed of light was an absolute that rendered everything else relative. Similarly experiencing is an absolute that renders all other frames of reference relative, or as you prefer, negotiable. The committee of selves that negotiates perspectives at a social level is like a superorganism bound in the sea of experiencing itself!

It sounds like what you do is use BS as a passive-aggressive tactic to avoid on-point discussion, so no I don't want to waste time and energy chasing you around the mazes you've set up to win against what you want to win against.

I think your analysis is too anthropomorhic. My position references both Heidegger and Maturana who deny the concept of 'experience' to non-language users. The fact that 'science', using mathematical models, can successfully predict human experience within a social paradigm is still anthropomorphic.
BTW re the OP, Heidegger even denies Existenz to non-humans, reserving it as an aspect of Sein(being) associated with our concept of Zeit/i] (time). This is interesting to me in these days of research in physics which deconstructs the utility of a 'time' parameter at all! Will 'existence' suffer the same fate ?

Thanks for that reference. It ties in with my dated psychology notes about experiments on primates.

Sorry about all those italics. I was timed out on the edit. Also replace 'anthropomorphic' with 'anthropocentric'.

That's fine. Just carry on with the time and energy wasting on other threads. Judging by the relative lack of positive response to you on those, you appear to quite successful in that respect.

Are you implying I should be more of a suck-up?

I didn't use the term exclusive to humans, in fact, I see "subjects" as Avatars in the "machine" whatever they are, cats, dogs, or people. Nevertheless experiencing is a brute true fact. As for Existence, since nothingness is a self-refuting obscure concept, well, Existence is X...not nothing!
I agree Time is an elusive concept. For me, Time is the measurement of change. No change no time ticking...see Roger Penrose on that subject.

You're a psych major?

Was...studied with Physics, Maths and Philosophy of Science subsidiaries,...later applied to research in Speech.

Okay. We differ fundamentally on 'existence' which I take to be a concept like any other with only contextual utility. Thus for me, for you to say 'raw experience exists' is meaningful only in a paradigm such as your own. My starting point is 'language as the currency of thought' (with all the exigencies of currency fluctuation) , and in that respect I am following the trend in recent philosophy which is somewhat iconoclastic about epistemology, especially those involving axiomatic systems.

If they are axiomatic paradigms they should not be vulnerable to iconoclastic points of view unless the axiomatic paradigm was developed by a group of people that had a poor interpretation of the data or were somehow delusional.

If you are part of a group of people developing a new paradigm do you think the previous paradigm was developed because of a poor interpretation of the data?

Or was the group that developed the original axiom delusional?

My major was Accounting, and my minor was Philosophy. Got a better grade in Philosophy, but did pretty well with my Accounting degree. Traveled around the world, and retired early and comfortably (in the safest city in the country, Sunnyvale). Met many interesting people during my travels, and that includes Walter, Ulla, and Ursula (Lippstadt, Germany), Alan and Fiona (Manchester, England), Francisco Baez (Mexico City, Mexico), Bill and Yvonne Lim (Singapore), Bob (Rocket Scientist) and Patti Brodsky, (Southern California), George O'Brien, Rear Admiral (Alameda, CA), Hiroshi Robaina (tobacco farm owner in Cuba - like the Partagas D4 cigar), Cesar works at the Nacional Hotel in Havana, Sergei and Oleg (Moscow, Russia), Kitchen Pete (London), Francis (Paris) -met him in London and SF, Joe from Chicago; Tsars, and Frank Apisa (NYC), and many others across the USA. My wife and I are doing the Columbia and Snake River cruise later this month for one week. Wish to continue traveling as long as my health allows.

I envy all that travelling! . Done a few cruises and travelled extensively in Europe. (In fact, I'm writing this from the shores of a Scottish loch)
I am fortunate to have a couple of active Philosophy groups to which I contribute which is one way of keeping the aging process at bay.

Read 'Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature' a classic by Rorty. You might find that your attempts at rhetoric are vacuous.

If you read it, why don’t you explain how it supports your rhetoric and why mine is vacuous? You seem to have a decent understanding of the English language with a decent ability to reason. You also seem to cover up your inability to take an argument to reasonable conclusion by being able to insult people with an excellent vocabulary.

It is fun to read but could you back up yor statements with reasons you believe them to be correct.

I love cruising, but my wife gets seasick, so she's limited to river cruising. That's the reason for our river cruise in just a few days on the Columbia and Snake Rivers from Portland to Lewiston, ID. One night in a Portland hotel, and seven nights on the boat. Should be fun, and the scenery should be an extra treat with waterfalls and rock cliffs.

You are using words like 'reasoning' and 'correct* as though they had fixe d meanings, but the trend in philosophy has been to deconstruct those assumptions. If you read Derrida for example, he argues that every assertion implies its negation.Without that background reading in common you will not see where I am coming from.