What do we know? Is it just a matter of remembering? Does the memory do it for us? Is it entirely a state of the brain? What if the brain is but a staging point with its own quantitative and qualitative limits? Whichever way we look at it we seem to arrive at a less than satisfactory definition – ‘the known’ could be tainted by its incompleteness, and how would we know? Laying claim to our experiences doesn’t seem to get us any further forward; yet, for the sake of our sanity, we rely upon our impressions and ideas of an external reality, together with what we are told about things.
Therefore, despite its shortfalls, it seems that equating the known to an external source appears to be the most tactical way of proceeding. However, our ability to consider this move raises a more fundamental question: is knowledge something else, something more than the facts by which we seek to measure it? Does the act of knowing appertain to another nature beginning with an awareness which we subsequently fragment in attaching it to the things we are aware of for the time being, apparently on the outside, believing that our awareness belongs there because it has to be an ‘it’ that is like everything else?
Also, don’t we find that the more we know the more we become aware of how little we know – that factual knowledge can harbour deep uncertainties? Even scientific knowledge advances on the basis of a constantly revisable awareness – knowing now that 99% of the universe doesn’t seem to be knowable in the same way as the 1% known as its observable dimensions. But in order to consider what that fact means, scientists will need to do something that the facts cannot do for them – consider the meaning in the broader context of an expanding awareness which they can attach to the facts, but cannot find there.