Take it like this: there is the invisible and unmanifest seer and there is the seen which is its counterpart. You can't have one without the other. Compare this to audience and show. The audience is unseen in the dark, its gaze directed away from itself and towards the illuminated stage on which there are various performers moving in and out of relationships. And it is not just the spectacle of the performers they take in but the set and setting as well. Within the staged relations, as read by the seer, there is always a basic polarity of subject and object, but the holding of these positions shifts around freely. This is where the entire rhetoric and ethics - these are inseparable and perhaps identical - of the terms subject and object plays out. We say the seer identifies with some distinguished element in the scene when that element is endowed with the subjective role relative to one or more other elements in their manifest relations. There can be a plurality of such relative subjects in which case there is always one true subject among them. This may be because the polarity is forced between any two and is forced to be consistent according to a certain logic, asymmetry, transitivity and so on, or else because the only rule is that of the one true subject and the logic is its side-effect.
This is how it seems to work but it is not entirely convincing. It tames the idea of subject so that we forget it is an abyss. This theory of what is is the point of view of the objective true subject, an oxymoron. This is the other as if God's all-seeing eye. It is like the reflection of the sun which we mistake for the sole source of illumination only because we are unable to look at it.