OK John, Let's get into it For what I know about you, you seem to enjoy formalization so I will play a little bit of this game. I will speak about the relations between Three "Epistemological elements" to clarify and ground our conversation. Lets call the Organism (Whatever living being) -->O Lets call the environment or Niche of the organism (If we are the organism we tend to call this “reality”) --> N and the Experience of that living being --> E and by Experience I will refer to whatever this living being is living in the present moment without making an initial distinction between "external" and "internal". So I mean by Experience the TOTALITY of what’s going on in the present. (You can even take a second to relate all this to your experience right Now). So here we are, human living beings trying to understand how we do what we do, and how do we know what we think we know. I claim that traditional epistemology or our cultural epistemological attitude always does the same thing in one way or the other, it always treats E, O and N in the same way: - brings E and N to the fore, - makes E something subordinated to N - and puts O to the background by understanding its role as a means of making connections between E and N. If we speak of knowing and knowledge, Doesn’t seem the most reasonable thing to do? I mean, isn’t reasonable to gave an special relevance to what is said to be known, to subordinate our experience “of it” and to consider our bodyhood as a mean to do that? Well see….. We also know that we do not see or experience “things as they are”.  We can claim by other means that there are for example a great number of microorganisms around us that we do not see or differences that can only be seen with ultraviolet lenses and so forth. So automatically we create a distance between our experience and “reality” (our niche) that has to be bridged and epistemology seems to be the study of the steps that connect E and N  or our experience and “reality”. N [Our niche or “Reality”]--> transforms1 --> transforms2 ……………>transformsS [Experience] -->maybe further transforms -->tf  [a transformed Experience] where S (the number of steps] and t1..ts..tf  are unknown then the question arises on how those processes of transformation are actually implemented in our bodyhood. How we embody those steps. You can be more or less sophisticated on this… But wait a second! What if we challenge the framework? What if we do not subordinate E to N and don’t consider O (the organism or the organic view of the living been) as a “means”? An alternative relationship between N, E and O: The “seen” way and the lived way ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (to be continued - more or less as in the The thousand and ONE nights)