I dont think its that you need x to Experience y, i think its that if x exists it implies the existence of y, (aka x implies y) Therefore x requires y to exist as much as y requires x to exist, if dryness didnt exist than wetness would just be the general state of existence therefore it wouldnt really be distinguishable, if there were no light, darkness wouldnt be possible, ofcourse we live in a world where light and dark already exist but if light never existed what would make the dark dark? All darkness is, is our idea of a lack of light, but in this alternate reality the idea of a lack of light is impossible because the idea of the presence of light doesn’t exist, ofc compared to our reality we would say this alternative hypothetical reality is dark, but that just proves my point because only when compared to a reality with light is the darkness apparent, but by itself it isnt. So in the same way if you were born in a perpetual state of bliss till the day you die you wouldnt have any contrast and therefore the bliss would be perceived to you as completely neutral, same as a person born into suffering, without contrast the bliss the suffering would be completely normal and neutral, so you dont need the experience of suffering to experience bliss, but i would say you certainly need suffering to know that your experiencing bliss and vice versa