Grounding is essential for any endeavor, right? You need ground to walk on. You need a groundwork to begin a math treatise. You need grounding for your philosophical system. You need grounding to take the next step. Everything in reason has a recourse to some grounding. But what happens when you examine that grounding? What do you see? If you stare at it long enough, think about it long enough, the ground disappears. Such and such assumption was based on this other idea, which was in turn based on a much more fundamental idea, which really was just another assumption to begin with. Then you’re left floating, waiting to find the next grounding. Is there one under that? Some other structure supported on a misty ground, down where you can’t see yet? Perhaps there is. Each time you find one, though, why wouldn’t it disappear like the one you just lost? To get anywhere, then, you need to ground yourself but not acknowledge that there is no ground. That’s a paradox, isn’t it? To walk without ground? But is it anything different than what you do without thinking about or looking at the ground under your feet? Somehow, walking without real grounding is possible. So what does it mean for something to be “real” then?
It’s also interesting that you can be grounded in whatever your current perceptions are. Those are much more solid than any thought you can muster to stand on. There’s more to write about this.