/lit/ - Literature

I have read his Jena Writings and have now started the PoS past the foreword and introduction. My question is:
How do you guys possible understand what he is saying if you haven't read Fichte and Schelling?
So much of what he refrences and what he touts is (seemingly) that of Schelling but specifically Fichte.

According to Shelling:
Not just your conscious self appears free though objectified deterministic, also the subconscious Self, which constitutes all the world, is since it is produced by this Self free for the Self, since freedom is acting out of one's own volition which the world then necessarily is.
You are simply looking at freedom too nearsighted to actually grasp just how vast you are free.

I need some Schelling anon to help me out.

I need some Schelling anon to help me out.
I finished reading "Vom Ich als Prinzip der Philosophy" (On Self as Principle of Philosophy, or on the Unrestricted in Human Knowledge) after reading Fichte's "grundlagen der gesammten Wissenschaftslehre" (Foundations of the Science of Knowledge), and am looking for specifically in Schelling's pre 1800 philosophy if is there any text of his that elaborates How the Nicht-Ich (Not-Self) placed by the Ich (Self) correlates with the Not by the Ich placed Nicht Ich?
For a decent part of the work I had to assume he was preaching some serious subjective idealism, before being reassured he is not actually trying to go beyond much of Kant's work, specifically in Kant's distinction of the thing-itself vs the thing-as-it-appears and rather Schelling simply elaborates further on the necessary foundation for the unresticted knowledge of which our Self would be part of (pretty much just continuing Fichte in this aspect).
I would like to know how he would deal with the inherent lack of Kant's thing seperated from our Self objective appearance; generally the lack of Objectivity as a whole.
>If the absolute self is actually what places the thing it self but only allows the empirical self to know appearances of this, I either completely misunderstand the usage of Self in "absolute Self" or it seems this is just subjective idealism.