All objectivity, as such, is unreal - except in that, being integral in consciousness, it must be a derivative of reality therein.
It follows that all subjectivity, as such, is real - except when, being envisaged and so becoming a concept, it is thereby an object, and so - unreal, which is the process of identification, which produces the supposition of an ego.
* * *
This, in other terms, is a restatement of the view that the ego-notion is the attribution of subjectivity to an object in consciousness. ('The Fact of the Matter', Ch. 69.)
In setting forth that view some difficulty was encountered in describing the withdrawal of subjectivity from the object: the intuition remained incomplete.
This restatement reveals the process as automatic, for when the subject is envisaged as such, and so becomes an object, the real subject, the observer, remains, untouched by the process, and can never be affected by any object or process of objectivisation (conceptualisation). I AM is eternally present, eternally real, the ultimate subject, subjectivity itself, and all that is.
As long as I know myself as I AM there can be no object in existence, no identification, and no idea of an ego.
Note 1: 'No object in existence?' A hard saying? Perhaps, but so it must be.
Note 2: It may be objected that it is the transcendence of the duality subject-object that is real, and not one element in that duality. The answer is given in the Table entitled 'Metaphysical Analysis of What We Are,' Ch. 81: the transcendence of the Dividual or I-dream-subject/object, i.e. their reality, is termed therein the Imperson or I-subject, and the transcendence of I-subject/all objects is termed therein the Unself or I-Reality. Subject, as such, always being real, only its pseudo or conceptual aspect can ever be transcended.
The terminology, then, is faulty? Yes, indeed; but can terminology do more than suggest? If we substitute 'I-pseudo-subject for 'I-dream-subject', and 'I-observing-subject' for 'I-subject' will that be more helpful? Good, then let us do so.
Note 3: What is reality anyhow? That which is immutable.
Note 4: The transcendence of any duality is represented by the I-observer who alone constitutes the relation between the two independent objects in consciousness of which the duality is composed. This point is clearly brought out by John Levy in his 'The Nature of Man According to The Vedanta', though he must he must not be held responsible for my use of it.
