Facts concern phenomenon and the relationship between the phenomenon,observer, and other phenomenon. Knowledge is created systems of beliefs around the observed facts. Wisdom is the meta-understanding of knowledge and where one sites in relation to knowledge and fact.

I don't wish to indoctrinate those who read this into my way of understanding or dissuade in what one surmise. If, in doing so, I would be positing a "belief system" that I don't wish to persuade you of, but, instead, putting it forth in fear of my own misguided understanding of the concepts that are incorporated in the system at hand. Arguments on misunderstanding are, often, in folly and contrary to true wisdom unless there is patients and a willingness to be open to both sides of the argument.
I am not infallible in my reasoning to the point of having a clearness of existence and where that reason and the accompanying understanding produces, in me, necessary truths that must be the case in all conceivable worlds, and therefore, cannot form a belief system that I fully except. I, will therefore, not try to subjugate you to my blatantly misguided system. I have come to realize that humbleness is the best policy when it comes to understanding and the dialogs that accompany it when interacting with other about such things. Plato states it best

"The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant"

This I find to be the most honest and worthy statement regarding understanding. It's basic meaning is humbleness keeps one clear from folly and lets one see what one's own biases are, to some extent, on the road of inquiry. There is no full proof way of subjecting ones own system of belief to itself without incurring and creating deeper and more profound paradoxes and misapprehensions (yet we must). Therefore, one must rely, to some degree, on others in pulling them from their dogmatic slumber, as was Kant by Hume's explanation of causality and what it amounts to.
This, "relying on someone" of course, presupposes many, many ideals dealing with metaphysics and epistemology which I suspect that most decree as pointless and mundane to the highest of caliber. I don't, in the least, blame them, if they do; I sometimes feel that my time and concentration should be spent in a more fruitful and becoming manner that pertains more directly to "common sense". But, I seem to be forever cast to question things that truly do not make a difference to what is physical existence, unless we count what is willed from the subject, and there in lies another theoretical can of worms.
I am not a pragmatist, meaning that I do not feel that knowledge has to be useful to our daily lives, and therefore infrequently concentrate on the practical aspects of existence when this relates to the seeking of truth. This, inability, may be considered folly by many, but I have learned to live with the assumptions made by the practical against the abstract or theoretical. To me, we are all in abstraction once we start to infer, deductively or inductively, anything outside what is directly experienced. For example, mathematics, at it's lowest and most common level, abstracts the physical into symbols and at it's most abstract and esoteric removes the physical all together. Furthermore, mathematics is one of the pillars that the rational side of knowledge depends on for support and without this very abstract tool, we as a species seeking knowledge , would have not come this far with what we "understand". Language is another form of abstraction that must be used in order to communicate ideas from mind to mind. One does not hold an object "cat" in the mind that is of the same type as the phenomenon of the physical world, instead it's an abstraction of the attributes of the phenomenal object "cat". These abstractions are stitched together to create the idea "cat" which is expressed though language and this is where philosophical argument comes into play.
As far as I can understand we all have abstract systems of beliefs and those abstract systems that we hold effect our phenomenal (physical) understanding (perceptions). In other words, our beliefs directly effect our perceptions of the physical world. Like that of being in Plato's cave , the shadows on the walls, are the abstract system of beliefs and we have no chance of truly unchaining and un-abstracting ourselves from the apparitions on the wall cave in order to truly see(understand) the phenomenal world in its naked beauty.
The deeper that one looks the more one sees that the phenomenal world, as we see it, relies heavily on the subject/object relationship (unless one pulls back so far that there simple is no difference between the two). This relation does not imply a subjective relativistic reality; it simply means that we, as subject, and those things that are out there, as objects, are deeply intertwined. Even science, in it deepest and most theoretical (General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), converges on this deep relation contrary to "common sense". The belief that theories dealing with truths have to be understandable in a "common sense" way is lapse and simply restrict what humans can inquire into and disallows freedom of the intellect. What is color? Is it really a part of the object or is it a relation between the subject/object or something else explainable only throw mathematics?
Mathematics, aesthetics, prose, poetry, philosophy, sciences and the concept of abstraction are all ways for the human mind to bypass or add to our systems of beliefs and to focus the intellect on the world as it may be without these distortions. If we are simple animals in existence without the will to drive our interest in inquiry, then and only then, can pure belief in common sense make sense. But, in contrast, we strive to understand our own existence and therefore all forms of inquiry should be put forth and examined, scrutinized, and inquired into.
There are four aspects to human understanding (maybe they are different aspects to the same thing). One being practical and everyday (empirical), two being of the emotions, three being apparitions of the mind(ideas), and four the intermixing and convolution of all three of the latter states. These systems are what, in general, control and influence our system of beliefs. This mix of metal states gives rise to the many and profound systems of beliefs.
Knowledge and understanding are both very dynamic in nature. If one pinpoints a part of knowledge and forms a static understanding around that information that was obtained, the understanding that is held will become quickly disconnected from the knowledge that produced the understanding. This disconnected state is the state in which most people abide in, and they, from this static point of understating, attack, not only other static forms of understanding, but also the dynamic form of understanding and claim it to be conceding to the inability of truth (agnostic in form) -- absolute and necessary truths sustained in all conceivable worlds --. Contrary, I would argue, that the static form of understanding is in folly, with out some form of fluidity, and is antagonistic to a deep and more profound understanding of what truth is and means.
There is a profound difference between holding a belief in something to be "absolutely true" and inferring something to be true with out claiming it to be a rigid and an unmovable truth. On the one hand, if we believe, we are cornering a specific piece of our perceptual reality, that being of a physical or mental aspect of reality, and claiming it to be what is the case and at the same time we are shunning or cutting off all other aspects of reality that do not correlate with that system. This static form of understanding is a denial of our limitation of mind and a surrendering to a passive state of mind, which is antipodal towards learning. The other aspect, that which is dynamic and non-rigid, does not deny this aspect of understanding in humans and instead embraces it as a tool in abutment to removing the limits of common sense, imagination, humanness, and so on. Common sense should not, here be taken, as a lesser form of understanding, but in contrast, it should be seen as one form of many forms of understanding.
Again, this is not tantamount to advocating a world view that proclaims that "knowledge can not be gained" or that "knowledge is the product of the human race" or that "knowledge is based of off a solipsists standpoint". All of the above mentioned view points are closed systems of understanding and, therefore, are not dynamic in nature. The emphasis that should be given is that of fluidity of what is understood and what can be understood at any given point in time. This fluidity is an openness to the possibilities that reside inside what is deemed knowable.
I believe that "knowledge" is the fluidity that one has with the different systems of understanding that reside in what is knowable. This fluidity is also what leads one to what I deem to be true freedom. Freedom's true nature or identity proceeds behind and is discovered with certainty under the circumstance of grasping the meaning of what is established or fixed for that which knows and it's unbounded and unlimited potential. These two fundamental aspects of existence can not be ascertained with out submerging self in investigation of existence in all its forms (art, science, religion, poetics, and philosophy). Therefore, it follows that continued investigation into existence gives rise to true knowledge and not answers to the questions at hand. Knowledge is the grasp of the eternal boundlessness and freedom is renunciation to the infinitely possible. Knowledge is vigorous seeking without anticipation of return. This "vigorous seeking" is not what gains knowledge, but is pure knowledge it's self.
The question is not "Is there absolute truths?", but instead, "Can we have a way, absolutely, of knowing that we have truth and how can we know that what we hold is the truth of the absolute"? We do have beliefs that we hold, that is a given, but is there a way to show that the beliefs that we hold and the truths that are incorporated into them are of the absolute. It comes down to - can we know that what we know is in the realm of the absolute. We are not just simple being of "common sense" and, therefore, strive for the absolute and its concreteness.
Why is it, as beings of inquiry, do we need the concreteness of truth or an adherence to what we claim to be truth? Why is there a need to have a reason for the existence that we are in other than existence itself? Why do we prefer probabilistic truths (science) or faith (religion) over the unknown? What comfort does it afford us if our truths and faiths create disdain for that which is "being"? What is the use of something if, when speaking about it, we are thrown into fits of confusion brought on by antipathy for the other view and those who hold it? This angst comes from the fear of loosing what is deemed truth; the fear of having to face the infinitely unknown. I say that honesty about knowledge and what it amounts to is the apex of civility.
The more that one inquires into existence the more one sees that underlying what we know about existence is a profound and limitless chasm which is of the unknown. With this "abyss of the unknown" in hand and as a catalyst for inquiry, one is allowed to peruse systems of understanding with a freedom that is not allowed when one carries with in them a coffer filled with rigid, adamantine beliefs. There is an ecstatic value ascertained from the beauty and intricate nature that is with in the multitudes of systems of understanding that humans, as individuals and as a whole (societies), hold.
I am advocating inquiry into all existence and holding systems of beliefs that are dynamic and not inflexible. I am advocating an open dialog with ones self and others and deep inquiry in to existence with a dynamic system of beliefs.

We each hold dearly to our truths and the system that we build up from those truths; as if , individually, we are the tower of Babel, trying to reach the absolute in order to secure our own existence. The small multitude of bodies running around our surface are truths pushing us ever nearer to the light. All bodies (truths) willing to work for the tower are inflicted with working relentlessly. Those that do not acquiesce to the will of the tower are slaughtered out right without further assay. The tower is what imprisons us and we are bound to it with out hope of release. Unless......