Upon experiencing deception, one learns that the reality as experienced before the learning of deception, may not fit what is now perceived to be an absolute reality. — Tehilla

I’m so far unclear as to what this (and the overall thesis) intends to specify. And a lot of topics have been addressed; so the OP may need some further unpacking. I will, however, offer this related observation:

Deception cannot exist in the absence of truth. To willfully deceive is to build up—in part or in whole—a fictitious reality, a fictional truth, which then becomes interpreted (trusted / believed) to be non-fictitious in those that are thereby deceived. (While I’d argue this holds true for self-deceptions as well, the issue of self-deceptions can become very complicated by various theories of mind.) So the deceiver, in order to be successful in his/her deceptions, first needs to be aware of the personally apprehended reality / truth in question prior to creating deceptions of it. This form of reasoning then leads to the conclusion that reality has to always be primary, and the deceptions we may or may not live under must always be secondary to that which is real.

So, while we may not currently be able to demonstrate that what we know (via experience, of which empirical data is only one variant of, or via experience & reasoning) is an absolute reality, this aforementioned reasoning does conclude in there being a metaphysical need for there being an absolute reality.

I would also argue that experience is not limited to perceptions that occur via physiological senses (i.e., is not limited to the empirical): one can, for example, experience jubilance or sorrow; likewise can one experience understandings in respect to that which is empirical, this without making one’s lived-through understandings themselves in any way empirical (i.e., apprehendable through physiological senses).

To my mind, then, all accounts of whether or not absolute reality can in any way become knowable to any sentience would be propositions devoid of worth if we couldn’t first establish that such a thing as absolute reality in fact does somehow exist—be this absolute reality physical (which I’d argue against due to the premise of physical reality being in perpetual flux, and hence not technically absolute—as I currently understand the term to denote “perfectly integral / fixed”) or, else, metaphysical.

Again, while you conclude in the OP that, “This paradox points to the impossibility of knowledge of absolute truth,”—a conclusions whose premises I so far find faulty (e.g., that experience can only consist of empirical data)—you haven’t yet made it clear if you nevertheless uphold that an absolute reality exists … even if its particulars are currently indemonstrable by us.

The question goes to what is ground. The subject, the object, the medium (perception), or the idea. Maybe it should be not just what but why it is the ground. The why establishes the reason.

But all of these critical words matter; they seem simple, and they are not. For example, reality. You're willing to ask about "absolute reality" before telling us what you think reality is. If reality is what you say, "Our experience of what we call reality defines the concept itself," then you've taken big steps towards answering your own question, but without the preliminary groundwork that might let you suppose you were on the right track with your answer.

Without that, you're stuck with deciding what 2, or any number, or any idea, is. If they're part of "absolute reality," then your definition of same will be interesting to read. If not, then what are they?

If you stick with just things - objects - then you should know that objects are characterized by thisness and whatness. (Not my terminology*.) I.e., that it is, and what it is. Now sort out how whatness fits into your definition. All this is to say that there are some questions you can just ask right out, and some require work beforehand. You've done some of that work, and in my opinion a mighty fine job of it. In fact (in my opinion) you've said more than probably you thought you were saying. That means we all have work to do on this topic before it can become intelligible.

*The End of Philosophy, Martin Heidegger, p. 2.


.

In Kant's Crit 3 (Judgment) he wrote that we're hard-wired to form images of the perfect, the absolute, god, freedom, etc. This is simply what the imagination does. the main issue, therefore, is how our imaginary objects are related to what we understand as The Real (doxa--received wisdom, habit) --or not. For example, Deleuze's 'Image of thought'--ch 3 of Difference&7 Repetition'....

I can't think of one situation where I could not question it's authenticity as reality. Just because you are unable to prove deception does not mean it is not deception. Deception requires a hidden reality, However with all the possible tools available to you and with every attempt made you can't prove deception this does not mean it doesn't exist. If you do find what appears to be deception would it not be prudent to question what you have discovered to ensure you are not being deceived. I believe this is a dangerous cycle of thought which envite little more that despair.