It is grounded by its meta-illocutionary nature. An illocutionary statement is one in which a statement is also an enactment that validates the statement. A meta-illocution is one in which the rules for formation of statements of truth are enactments that simultaneously confirm their conformance to the source of ruling (let’s call it the Metametamodel of all possible logics or, more poetically, the Celestial Tablet). In this case, the rules are the dance and the dance is its ruling.
In the simplest case, each dancer weaves in and out his/her partners, following a cycle about an assumed centre, the collection of dances distilled into a geometry of concentric circles. At certain moments, a dancer might gaze across and perceive a friend on the other side of the circle, reminding them through reflection of the (Divine) provision of the Light carried by the dance, despite the ultimately fictional nature of its geometry (the geometry I am attempting to enunciate right now, to you, from across the circle).
The image is simple enough: but it does not situate my voice — as a philosopher, not a Qutub or prophet — to its explicit form, so let’s add that in and see what happens.
Provision of Light is appreciated by the dancers in relative degrees. Dancers stand in relativity to one another: we note that each dancer can also “hop” between the concentric circles (let’s say there are 7, but we could pick 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 8 or 10 or 28, or 10 by 10, or one for each amongst the infinitude of human inter- and intra-relationships that constitute our being in the world).
Jumps between circles are a radical intra-dimensional slavery/messaging into/of gratitude/pleasure in relation to the Felt Lack/Felt Bestowal of Provision emanating from Faciality at the centre of the complex. Faciality is the crystallization of multiplicitous colours of the ribbons held by the dancers, the colours intertwining in motion forming a vapour of colour that condenses into beads of water to form a Face — rather controversially (!) possessing two eyes watching the dancers — a surface, not a pole, at the centre of the dance. (The ribbons, by the way, are called the ties of the womb/ties of kinship in Qur’an.) The Face is psychological, but referent.
To negotiate a hop between a concentric circle is to jump between universes and realities — it’s a physical (not imaginary, metaphoric or out of body) negotiation between the worlds that have been, will be and might have been, in intersection with the conduit our individual soul-life-thread.
We remind the reader at this point that every category can be reversed, and so the ribbons and the Face, though they are referent, are really a geometric crystallization of Love in the cup of Lordship/Acknowledgement running over over into nothing).
Unfortunately, as far as I can see, hops appear to be quite difficult and are traditionally regulated by a priest/government official/psychotherapist/supposed owner of the rule book.
Some free thinking people look at these regulated hops and think: “Oh, I’ll have none of that regulation, that’s like a kind of rigid formulation, and who wants to go round and round in circles anyway — I’m not playing that game.”
But of course the supposed regulators are, in fact, uttering their pronouncements in horizontal relativity to the other dancers, as other dancers. We are all moving about in horizonal relativities, with each trajectory of each dancer being negotiated according to different velocities. The dancers are racing against each other, in this sense, and their utterances can only be measured, Alice in Wonderland style, according to portions of eat-me cake and drink-me potion (these portions are also part of the rules of the game and do not source the relative velocities, they are the relative velocities made flesh, so to speak). The dance becomes her mad Caucus race.
But then, where does that leave the concentric circles? Travel and geography must be brought into the description, rather than Saussurian semiotics, cultural ethnography or psychoanalytic practice: there are “real”, molar (infinitesimally micro) hops that occur when we locate “fissures” or cracks in the wall of our dance — and it is these fissures, often open temporarily but sometimes also tied to Real locations and sites. These fissures are what the dancer must seek out in order for an effective “hop”.
The other regulated, traditional hops are also important, but only inasmuch as they encode a macro-map of the possibility of hopping, and the patterns of circles — encoded (again the encoding is the rules/the action at once) these crystalized mandalas. The encoding (sometimes called a donkey in scripture) provides the opportunity for a dancer to, at some stage, at some cycle of revolution, to listens out for regulatory voices (in discursive relation to themselves) and then to detect the location of micro-hops, utilizing the encoding as a map along their wall.
I could go on to explain how qisas fits in here — that’s key to how this system leads to the afterlife. And then we are really in the space of non-philosophy.