Regarding ‘experience’ there could be lot of ideas formed. When Ven.Thera mentions 'experience', it is about something we are undergoing at the 'present moment' that he is mentioning. It is with cognition and consciousness we are experiencing the present. It is a ‘real time’ concerning the very ‘moment’. Each experience is happening in a time slot where the duration of it may be so small that we may not be able to realize it. At this very present, you are reading these words in a sentence . It is the experience you are having in this present time. So the point to be taken is that an experience will not take place unless there is a presence.

It is said that the presence, cognition or consciousness are phenomenon of ‘Vinnana’, which is the word Gautama Buddha used in his sermons for the above mentioned phenomenon. The two characteristics of 'Vinnana' being 'Patigha' and 'Adhivachana' or 'Inertia' or 'Designation'. Inertia of Vinnana is called as 'Rupa' and Designation of Vinnana is called 'Nama'. Behaviour of Rupa can be seen or come into prominence through the 'Four Mahabhuta's general modes'. They being Earthy, Watery, Fiery and Airy modes.
Designation of Vinnana can also be considered as its 'behaviour' and also its 'appearance'. Experiences of Vedana,Sanna,Cetana, Phassa and Manasikara had been categorized into Nama and explained well in the Thera’s notes.

Behaviour is explained with an example of a ticking of a Clock, as it is vital to understand the 'behaviour' of Mahabhuta. Whether we notice or not of the behaviour of Mahabhuta, they would always 'behave their particular way according to the modes', as had been in the "past, at present or in future". Other important discloses are that Rupa precedes Manasikara and Rupa or Inertia does not specify 'Sanna' nor the mode of Rupa’s appearance. That means the Rupa or Inertia is not connected to the way how they should appear and they are quite independent of the mode of the appearance.
In fact, for Rupa or Inertia, in order to appear, in order to be the phenomena of 'namarupa', it must be 'Oriented'.( Adjusted or located in relation to surroundings or circumstances; sometimes used in combination)
Another important statement is that ‘a phenomenon cannot present all of it's aspects at once with equal emphasis', but only in a perspective involving 'manasikara'.’ Here an emphasis is given at the immediate level so that any other perspectives will have varying sublevels below the perspective who has the main emphasis. If taking further,and if we are thinking of something at this moment, the thing we are thinking about gets the maximum emphasis until another perspective had been selected as the main emphasis. This way, we make layers over layers of perspectives with experiences that moves back to the past with unimaginable speed. Every present moment with cognition and consciousness will make image layers of micro level time durations that will make our own past.

The explanations on ‘to be present’ and ‘to be absent’ are unheard of this way and has depth not seen from the surface.

To be present is -to be here and now
To be absent is -to be here and there
To be absent is -to be there and now
To be absent is -to be there and then

Attention (manasikara) is intentional difference between presence and absence.

This we can expand the following way.

(1) Attention is intentional difference between to be here and now and to be here and there
or
(2) Attention is intentional difference between to be here and now and to be there and now
or
(3) Attention is intentional difference between to be here and now to be there and then

Consciousness is the difference between the presence in any degree and utter non presence or non existence.

This is a very important statement.
The amount of one's consciousness may depend on the difference of the presence and non presence,
Writing the sentence following way,
More the knowledge of the presence, more the amount of consciousness.
Less the knowledge of the presence, less the amount of consciousness.
So while we are in deep sleep,
If no knowledge of the presence, then no consciousness at all then.

Another important aspect regarding an Image is expressed as such by the Thera.

An image may be present or absent, but even if present, it is always absent reality.

An image (Rupa, Inertia) we are considering can be a ‘present’ image experienced by us now (Form, Sound, Smell, Taste or Touch) or can be even an 'absent' image. Even that ‘ present image’ being ‘assessed’ by our organs, will not be in the status of 'present' image category than a moment, since the status of 'present' rapidly becomes the 'absent'. The ‘manovinnana’ brings back to us the ‘images’ of past experiences of ‘namarupa’ even though the ‘images are of absent reality’.

It is not possible at all to have a image of the present even for a while since the ‘present’ image goes down the memory lane to the past to make way to more newer and newer ‘present images’ that literally have no ending of becoming, and other than making all ‘present’ images to ‘absent’ images in no time!

Mind consciousness or 'mano vinnana' is the presence of an “image”, or since an image can be absent, of an image of an image' (for ex. image of “an image that had been there but is absent now”.)

Venerable Thera also points out that relative to the imaginary of mental experience, five -base experience is real. But also relative to what is 'central' in a given field of ' five-base experience', whatever is 'peripheral' in that field, is already beginning to partake of the nature of 'imaginary'.

Some discussion that could be found on 'Real' and 'Imaginary', appearing in the Note on Nama is as follows.

Real= Present,Central,Actual

Imaginary=Absent,Peripheral,Possible

The disjunctions 'central/peripheral' and 'actual/possible' or 'certain/possible' represent two slightly different aspects of the more general 'present/absent'

Central/Peripheral is as it is in 'strict reflection'.

Actual/Possible is in 'abstract judgment' or 'discursive reflection'.

‘Intention’ is the 'absent' in relation to the 'present'. Here we have ‘intention’ is due to the fact that what we need is not being in ‘presence’. So we ‘intend’ to have it at this moment, since it is 'absent'.

Every present is relatively accompanied by a number of absents. Here we are comparing the present with that not present. Suppose we have a chair in front of us. We can compare the chair to unaccountable number of other forms apart from the chair that are absent. So any presence will accompany with unlimited number of absents ( in any ‘namarupa’ conditions)