There is a great quandary in the Indo-European worldview concerning the relation of Being to Knowledge. Being only exists in the Indo-European worldview, and it is made out of many different elements that remain separate in other languages like copula and existence. But what we seemed to have done is created something like knowledge but as a standing toward things different from existence. Being is suppose to be a substance. But in fact it is merely a projection. So that means that the only thing that really is perduring in our experience is knowledge. However, we seem to have understood knowledge as something more transitory than Being. This is because emergent events occur that restructure our knowledge. And it is interesting that these emergent events have a structure similar to the meta-levels of Being, i.e. Pure, Process, Hyper, Wild, and Ultra.
Quora answer: What is knowing?
Let me ask you this. Where is your knowledge when you are not expressing it? It is as if it did not exist, but then when you are talking about something you know it appears there in your words, and sometimes you even realize more by talking about what you know, than you knew you knew. So Knowledge has this odd quality of being very evanescent yet durable and perduring like we project Being to be, but which it isn’t. So it looks like Being is a construct that is intended to be more perduring than Knowledge which vanishes when it is not being expressed.
As expressed in another answer, Knowing is in a emergent hierarchy of Givens, Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom, Insight and Realization. Knowledge is the middle of these layers of understanding. Knowledge is an expression of what is the most stable in our experience. We usually think about it in terms of networks of concepts that form theories which have different statuses with respect to supporting evidence. We can best understand what knowledge is by looking at this hierarchy and understanding the differences between its emergent levels. The deeper the understanding, and the more stable the theory in the face of experiment the more we want to admit it to what we call our body of knowledge.