The notional split of experiencing into subject (or witness) and object, or of intentional atoms into noesis and noema, is oddly ungrounded. It seems to be justified only as a way of modeling experience in a finite scheme and of aligning this with the affective centreing on an exposed 'self'. If you look closely at any of the senses, seeing, hearing, feeling etc., then no grammar can appear since any such appearance would only be a reflection in an adjacent sense What you find instead is a need to subtly personalise experience, a need driven by a fear of falling into groundlessness. That fear seems to be all there is of ground, as if, even if there is no person or self, the fear of admitting this can substitute for it. 'There must be a self to be afraid of there being no self.' But just like the senses there is no anchor for that fearing, it is just the functioning bootstrapping in the void.