If in writing some sort of structure of reference is maintained, as is the case when the 'you' is used as a subject anchor then a context of givenness is assumed against which this experiencing can arise as an episode continuous with various other off-stage realities. The condition is that to whatever degree the subject term names the consciousness in which or to which the experiencing arises it is not everything but is defined against a transcendence which is not its own creation. In other words, the language even if it is deployed to express a totalising or non dual vision is still inherently dual. No matter how cunning its condition of truthfulness contains a reference beyond itself, something that it needs in order to be stable and meaningful, in order to operate its seemingly all embracing humanism. If it could be pushed out beyond this, and there is no reason why it can't since the way the words mean is not really given with them; the words don't really determine anything beyond some abstract gestures, then the very foundations of the world would be shattered. The 'you' in its coy way bot invites this and wards it off. There simply is no pure theory of identification because there is no possible subject of such a theory, every subject being already the performance of what it takes to be such and identification. The subject represents the subject for itself, and since this is nonsensical it doesn't in fact represent any possible subject or factuality at all. Any self naming is a (failing) mise-en-abîme, including this one.