One version of who I am (what this is) is consciousness considered as the totality of all achievable first-person content, including the reduction that swallows whole the second and third person worlds into the first, and the reduction of that reduction etc. Here all is noematic, even what is called noesis is content or event, a more subtle kind of object, and hence still falls under noema. Consciousness as the extension of all possible experience. This one is the thick version, the full-moon, pushed out as far as it can go and then some. There is also the thin version, the vanishing sliver of the new moon, that for whom all this is, that which can never be an object of any kind, so that it can't be said to exist and so that there can be no evidence for it whatsoever. The wink, the lotus sermon, you either get or you don't - and it doesn't matter in the least. Are these the same? Well, metaphysically, perhaps, whatever that might mean, but not culturally, not poetically, not stylistically. Each is the fatal error of the other. There is no term by which they can be put into relation with each other, neither identity nor negation.