On one side there is the idea of identification, that of a transcendental or veritable self somehow hypnotised by the ongoing play in the same way that you get submerged into the world of a movie or a book, and on the other the idea that what this is is an organ of appearance the content of which is the totality embracing both subject and object - a contingent limitation of which appearance being this division into perspectival shards. In the first alternative you might struggle to break free, to shake off the illusion, say by studying it carefully to find the flaws, to work against the grain of its misdirection, while in the second you strive to expand your identification from the enclosed point to the totality, to reject rejection, reject the sense that anything is more or less real than anything else. In either case there is a truth-operation within experience in which one understanding supersedes another, a truth function in relations with an odd quality of necessity from which you conclude that there is truth beyond relations. If this here and now is an organ of appearance there is no residue of experience that is not phenomenal and the truth internal to experience is no pointer to the truth of experience. In this model of understanding the question arises on the side of the subject only, inquiring as to who the final experiencer is, as you realise that every apparent subject is only a component of what is experienced and hence not a subject at all. While if it is a dream-like illusion there is an inference from error - the inconsistencies and paradoxes of experience are pointers to errors which are corrected in being fully perceived, and one looks to the mystery of how there can be anything at all, of what the ground can be of the something and of the nothing.