It's illusory to break it down into simply "knowing" and "not knowing". Knowledge exists on a spectrum. Our knowledge of the world varies depending on our level of verification. We can perform all kinds of wonderful experiments and compare our observations against other people's observations, and thus triangulate in on "the known". But that doesn't mean we ever arrive at truly knowing. Knowledge is an ideal that we strive for, but it's a slippery thing. With each new thing that we learn, a thousand new questions are opened up to us. And this goes on for infinity. Suddenly you've opened Pandora's box. So perhaps trying to know is like those scientists who are trying to find that one fundamental, indivisible particle that is essentially the stuff that we are all made of. So they spend millions of dollars designing these incredibly powerful instruments. But the more powerful their instruments get, the smaller the particles get, and so the scientists build even more powerful instruments—supercolliders and whatnot—and they find even smaller particles, and this also goes on for infinity. So it seems that knowing is a process of continuously falling down the rabbit hole while the bottom is racing away from you, constantly escaping your fumbling attempts to pin it down. And the more you do it, the more obsessed you get with trying to get there, because you're always on the brink of catching up. You can almost taste it. I believe this is called 'chasing the dragon'. And no one ever catches the dragon. There will be no grand revelation. And I'm fine with that. Who ever said that there had to be a known in order for there to be knowing? In the words of Alan Watts, these are rules of grammar, not laws of nature.