The third-person world is essentially the world of appearance, which means that an impassable barrier exists between experience and being - or would so exist if being, or the noumenon, were an allowed meaning. In this vision if anything was real it could only be the entire system, but with nothing outside the system there is nothing to confirm its reality. Anything within the system is grasped in an event of recognition which is an abstraction, a way of speaking about certain arbitrarily bounded relations, and hence pure functionality without identity. The cogito is not enough; in the third-person perspective it is a kind of illusion which might be indulged out of sympathy for the weak-minded, which is as much as we can be, only optionally or ironically necessary. The same is true of the first-person perspective if it is rigorously pursued: you cannot say "I am", only "something is" or "appearance appears". The first- and third-person perspectives differ only in the accent given to appearance. In order to get to identity another subject is needed, God or an equivalent. Reality can only be anchored in transcendence, if it is to have a capital R it ought to be a proper name. Identity is a phenomenon of the second-person world. But then, how important is identity after all? Isn't it just a game, the greatest game in town admittedly, but still a game. What is concrete is the fragile particular. Isn't that all the absoluteness you've ever needed? It's pretty surely all you'll ever get.