What We Call 'Knowledge', Is Really ...

[Tambourine]

Using the phrase "hung up" is supposed to imply some sort of flaw, here?

It is supposed to imply a barrier that you cannot get past.

 

[Straw Dog]

The point is that we are not discerning truth from falsehood. We are discerning functionality from dysfunction. Function is an aspect of truth, but it does not define truth. How something functions is not the truth of it's existence.
All perspectives are partial, and therefor partially "incorrect", because truth is a singular whole. The truth is 'what is'. And we have no way of knowing the degree to which we are incorrect because we do not have access to the whole of 'what is'.

Unfortunately, because we humans survive and thrive by knowing our circumstances well enough to manipulate it to our advantage, we are inherently frightened of anything we can't know well enough to control. And to alleviate this existential fear, we like to imagine that we 'know it all', or can, even when we clearly do not, and cannot. Hence, the recent emergence of 'scientism' replacing religious superstition, wherein science becomes the presumed fountainhead of all knowledge and truth, as opposed to divine revelations from "God". But science can only investigate functional relationships in the physical realm of existence. And so 'scientism' deliberately ignores and dismisses any other means or areas of existential investigation: art, philosophy, spiritualism, etc., and their methods: intuition, fantasy, superstition, emotion, and so on.

That’s true. There are different ways of understanding and no sense in putting all our eggs in one basket, so to speak. It’s not so much about who “knows it all“ as it is building mutual understanding based on common experiences, experiments, and observations.

Perhaps ‘control’ is largely an illusion. It’s more a matter of harmony and a balancing act, learning to align with the flow of life rather than resisting it.