The knower may say, "I know this absolutely," or he may say, "I know this absolutely."
With the emphasis upon the object of knowledge," I know this, " we have the other sense of absoluteness of knowledge: it is an assertion that the knower knows the" this,"whatever it may be, in its essence or as it truly is in itself.
Hence it is common nowadays to hold that there is indeed a difference between knower and known, ego and non-ego, subject and object, but that they are inseparable; or that all known things are objects and subjects inseparably connected in 239 experience.
The result of this inquiry is generally intellectual scepticism in a greater or less degree, namely, that the object has no existence for the knower except a relative one, i.e.
The metaphysic is the epistemology from another point of view - regarded as completing itself, and explaining in the course of its exposition that relative or practical separation of the individual knower from the knowable world, which it is a sheer assumption to take as absolute.
The absolute or infinite - the unconditioned ground and source of all reality - is yet apprehended by us as an immediate datum or reality; and it is apprehended in consciousness - under its condition, that, to wit, of distinguishing subject and object, knower and known.
But in this very cognition of self is involved the distinction of knower and known, from which proceeds the power to become spirit.
That was the only way you could know something—and when the "Knower" died, the knowledge was gone, unless it had been shared with (and memorized by) someone else.
Even if Knower #1 taught someone the fact, story, etc., what if Knower #2 didn't remember it?
Or what if Knower #2 died without teaching another?