A being is just as real as their suffering, or alternatively suffering confirms and validates the reality of beings, it realises their reality in finality, provides the deciding act of faith, summoned necessarily, inevitably, the auto da fé. Pure materialism or pure idealism like any consistent monism has no place for suffering since for it the existence of beings is secondary or phenomenal, while what is real is only what, while remaining entirely sufficient in itself, underlies the phenomenon of phenomena. This tells us more about metaphysics as the location of a discourse that treats reality as a viable designation within a larger region of discourse that pivots on, reflects on, the experience of suffering. Here suffering is the social fact that is firmly rooted in the subjective as asocially private or presocial, while reality is the social fantasm of a transcendent objectivity that is its outer limit. In other words, suffering and objectivity are the two opposed poles of necessity as social or discursive fact: the inner private and the outer or physical. If what is is the timeless and spaceless thing-in-itself then love and compassion would melt away with the rest of the dream, together with morality. This would be how it is except that suffering demands a subjectivisation that matches any realisation step for step, or an abjection that matches any absolution. A god that fulfills the function of a God, including dispensing the law, must be One that suffers at the same time as being outside of or beyond or oblivious to all suffering - and what goes for God goes equally for Self or not-Self. This is a paradox, and paradox demands capacity - while the elevation of morality and explanation to primary consideration is what happens when this fails.