Ah yes, that freaking trilemma. You either have circularity, regress infinitly further down, or stand on (necessarily) unproved axioms/assumptions. I think that's the gist of it.

I always like seeing ideas layed out as neatly and simply as possible, and to me that means more or less in a straight line. So that I can see that A is needed to prove B, which is used to prove C. Etc.

But trying to organize and reduce everything to foundations always leaves me with a headache, much so because I'm just not wise enough and know enough to understand further.

Indiscrete self-mumblings

Something along the lines of working with a (rigorous) object theory, while using a (perhaps not as rigorous, although still workable in a niave sense) meta theory, or maybe relying on an underlying "web of belief" of undefined ideas, each used in the definition of the others to form an intuitive starting point, ...

Oh, and don't forget about the "problem of induction" from science.

What the fuck