If you are going to say that something or anything is barred it would be better, in opposition to common prejudice, to take object as barred than subject. The error is in assuming the experience of object to be determined, stable and basic, to be 'objective' in a word, and as thus affording the reference standard to which the apparently unapparent subject ought to conform, but is clearly forbidden from doing so. You see yourself as condemned to the fruitless quest of this impossible 'object' which ramifies into innumerable refracted impossible objects which strategically motivate the whole game. It doesn't help that language seems bent in this direction, throwing up words like consciousness, God, reality, freedom, apex-words that defy existence since none can be subsumed into objectivity, cashed out in its terms. What you don't want to give up is objectivity and it is this surrender that is barred most of all, or tarred with pejoratives like 'idealism'. Objectivity may be a social construct, an idol of the tribe, but then so is the tribe. No matter how subtle and self-reflexive you get, you can't get Here from There.