When we believe in something beyond our immediate experience, and in turn, perceive it as “knowledge,” what truly matters isn’t the “understanding” but rather the “working out” towards articulating it.

It seems that our minds are inherently encrypted when subjected to knowledge, and language too, seems to function like passwords on a computer. It propels us forward, but once we grasp it; more on the act than the linguistic aspect, the very act of articulation itself loses its meaning (overthrown to the back of our minds). The point is that it “opens” or serves as a “point of access” to a realm where both the articulation of knowledge as reasons or the judgment of forms are possible, where contradictions can arise.

In terms of replicating(the experience, not just the "thing/object"), but not copying, the craftsman’s present knowledge is necessary but not decisive in making the end product distinguishable from similar products. When building something new, the knowledge that articulates it is precisely zero, so what’s here is intuiting and logic. This intuiting, assumptions lead to problems, similar to those mentioned in paragraph 1, but intuition doesn’t work. So, there’s something that works, however, that comes from other directly, past experiences which is still the "other", learned from others…. What I’m suggesting here is that to do things differently, one must first characterize them differently. Therefore, repeatedly doing this creates some kind of encryption of how it’s made, and it becomes articulated as knowledge as well.