Knowledge as a function of intuitively “grokking it” in perception is a curious beast. Is demonstrable knowledge the only valid form of knowledge? Are there forms of knowledge that are only ever indirectly accessible as a corollary of true but unprovable logical facts.
Consider the mental visualisation of a 3D sphere. There is some implicit, perhaps endemic or native anthropic, sense in which we are biased by entrained visual experience and acquired neurophysiological structure to perceive a sphere as a perspectival projection that reflexively indicates and constructs the viewing position (as aspirationally external “Archimedes point”) of knowledge and knower.
We can rotate the object in imagination as though a planetary Globe but we serially fail if we attempt to perceive it simultaneously from all possible perspectives. The viewing point dissolves as it becomes necessarily distributed across an infinite hyper-surface. This is, among other things, a core enigma of holistic system models.
Some forms of knowledge are experienced as partial, present as a function of their own absence or impossibility and yet inaccessible to communication or exegesis. The kind of knower and grammatical or explanatory model they invoke all but entirely invalidates any generally accepted teleology of normative narrative as (subjective) perception or cognitive intuitions we possess.