This article aims to provide a new perspective of experience narrative for persuasive purpose, vastly underexplored, requesting an argumentative explanation beyond the narrative one generally acknowledges. At the beginning, we shall clarify the concept of ‘experience’ - perception or recall. The perception, called ‘real perception’, is different from ‘real events’ or ‘recalled perception’. Experience narrative structurally identical with experience are structured by narrative self and experiencing self. Experiencing self at the time of event results in perception and narrating self at the time of narrating performs recall. The two selves are the two subjects of structuring the meaning of the narrative, and at the same time the subjects of macro-communication. The two selves narrate argumentation trying to persuade that the narrated perception is ‘fact’. The ‘fact’ of the experience narrative is not a question of whether the described perception coincides with ‘recovered perception’, ‘real perception’, or ‘real fact’(which refers to ‘fact’ in a general sense), but a question of whether the audience approves the described perception as ‘fact’. Therefore, argumentation depends on audience’s approval. Experiencing self narrates perception, and narrating self reconstructs the perception to achieve the purpose of argumentation. If audience disapproves, narrating self come to the front to supplement or justify the perception.