# Knowledge as The Art of Drawing Distinctions If I had to mention one pivotal moment in the evolution of my thinking, it would be the day when I finally understood that, *knowledge is discerning*. Back then, I was working extensively on my chessologic theory. Using a fragmented writing style, I managed to lay down dozens of ideas per session. I would later spend my time uncovering connections and noting down further realizations. Amid that wild ideosis, a thought led to another until I stated the obvious, yet the feelings I got about it wasn’t that trivial. I was already curious about knowledge and its essence. I framed that interest into various questions in the past. Yet, what they all had in common was a focus on what was always involved when knowledge was evoked, appealed to or constructed. My reading of “knowledge is discerning” confused the act of knowing with the action of distinguishing between things. Knowledge of a given topic is a network of distinctions. A construction that enables the formulation of meaningful descriptions pertaining to the topic in question. Knowledge grows from investigating the interaction of a novel distinction with a set of pre-existing ones. It is by considering two things as distinct that, we experience the need to refer to them differently. We formulate the simplest explanation as to their difference. Such description requires us to either use or define new concepts. To enact further distinction and produce more description. This whole process is what makes a body of knowledge. We come up with words and associate them with things to imply that they are different; distinguished from the rest. Inquiry in all of its forms is what makes our language grow. Knowledgeability is then proportional to one's vocabulary. One's understanding cannot be demonstrated unless it is communicated. Language enables the expression of knowledge. It makes it possible but also limits it. Even though they are treated as separate, language and knowledge are related in intricate ways. Far from being independent, they shape each other. This exposition is concerned with the low-level code of knowledge. A level where the inner-workings are exposed down to the boring detail. A scale where high-level vacuous discernment dissolves. Charting all the distinctions in knowledge bodies is an intellectual overdo. However, there is always an interesting subset which dominates the most important descriptions. A group of distinctions with the most impact on the structure of understanding. Knowledge work translates to complex manipulations on distinction structures. I suspect there is a whole arithmetic whose outcome directly affects understanding and consequently what we can say about a given topic. By dropping and adopting distinctions, descriptions vary. See it as drawing a curve on a canvas. The moment you draw a line you forward something over the rest and by doing so again and again, a form will emerge. And so, a state of knowledge is transcribed. Curves are the result of the hand enacting strokes through various gestures. The same way, knowledge is drawn by those abstract gestures effected by the one who inquires. Although it would seem that the distinction come from the medium, the process is opposite. It is not the pen which bleeds ink, but rather the paper which bleeds to the strokes of the sharp nib carving wounds on it. The paper feels like skin and you are the one with the scalpel. Knowledge is drawn forward.