My first projects are the drafting of the Science of Knowledge and Elen (the encycplopathy of knowledge). These projects arise from the need to express an idea, a thought, "thoughts". These thoughts together with yours will create a corporation made not of people but made of ideas and definitions. There Science of Knowledge he will study Knowledge in all its aspects and from new points of view while Elen will group all the Knowledge in the form of definitions or thoughts in a, we hope, long list in which anyone can search for specific knowledge and then try to enrich the person who will read us. My hope is that one day a person will be able to use the Science of Knowledge and Elen as a tool of comparison, as a tool of measurement, as a tool of curiosity and as a tool of reliability. People will have to find in Science and in the definitions of knowledge, of "Truth", which can also be used as a judgment tool. These first two projects are therefore revolutions that will give us new ways and new perspectives to observe and study knowledge.

This site therefore has the task of disseminating ideas and reflections, of giving, I repeat, new definitions, remembering that we already have definitions on the theory of knowledge such as Epistemology and Gnoseology which, being dated, may need to be dusted off and adapted to the era of the WEB 3, industry 4.0 and the infinite distortion that the thirst for knowledge, which can be satisfied for 20 years thanks to the infinite and consultable sources, has brought about the concept of knowledge itself. Therefore, since there is still no definition of Science of Knowledge, the objective is to coin it and to create a set of definitions of what the specific knowledge of something can be and mean, how it can be obtained, what is the minimum degree of knowledge for to have mastery, which knowledge has the most impact "also and above all for the purposes of diligence" and, finally, the maximum knowledge that can be desired.

Therefore, your thoughts, messages or your personal definitions will be collected about what is the knowledge of a certain subject, a certain field, a subject, any material or immaterial thing and what you need to possess to say that you have satisfactory knowledge. on a topic and which knowledge in your opinion has the best of another or is more indispensable according to the logical thread of the Science of Knowledge that you will find on the appropriate page.


We pay attention to the fact that anything can be known satisfactorily for me if you have at least two Primary Knowledge towards that thing, two knowledge that are complementary to obtain a Satisfactory Knowledge of the thing, two knowledge that form two sides of the same coin, Theoretical Knowledge and Emotional KnowledgeFor example, if we think of a disease a doctor could say that the knowledge of the disease is to know everything about it (cases, symptoms, treatments, etc etc) therefore Theoretical Knowledge however a patient could say that if he does not experience the pain and feelings you have (Emotional Knowledge) one cannot say that one knows it completely or even does not know it at all; then who can have more right to be the disseminator of the knowledge of that disease, "who tests it?", "Who studies it?". Obviously those who have both theoretical and emotional knowledge (primary for me for a good knowledge of everything) give a satisfactory knowledge of that disease but perhaps they do not alone lead to Absolute Knowledge of the topic. We will also talk about the Instinctive Knowledge which is a more delicate and profound theme. Just as on the one hand a "fishing expert" who has never fished and on the other a fisherman, who can have more right to be a popularizer of fishing knowledge? Who has the most important and essential knowledge to deal with the subject? Here, too, there are 2 primary knowledge (those who have studied it and those who have tried it) that complement each other by guaranteeing satisfactory knowledge to those who have both but always not absolute. There are therefore "ATHEIAN THEOLOGISTS", can we therefore say that they have a SATISFACTORY knowledge on religion having only a primary knowledge or THEORETIC? ". There are war experts who have never fought as soldiers; can we say that they have a "satisfactory knowledge" on war to be able to talk about it as connoisseurs of the subject? And so on. Another example may be a geographer and a traveler, there may be a geographer who has studied the geography of the world but has traveled little while the traveler has not studied but has experienced it by traveling many times. Who can enrich us more if he tells us his story? They still have two primary knowledge, so they are once again complementary knowledge? Here too the answer is trivial in saying that the traveling geographer would be a complete figure because we must analyze all the cases to know the impact of knowing him and the degree of transmission of an individual having different knowledge and approaches. The science of knowledge also studies this.

It may seem obvious but sometimes there are people who say they have a good knowledge of a topic having only one of the two primary knowledge and claiming to be able to talk about it and disseminate knowledge having only tried it or on the contrary not studied but lived.

There are therefore differences between Primary knowledge (how many primary knowledge there are?), Satisfactory knowledge (but who do they satisfy?), Theoretical knowledge, Emotional knowledge and Absolute knowledge (does absolute knowledge exist?).