acquiring knowledge

this is a note a wrote in my journal one day and i think it sounds pretty good, so i will print it out for you guys to have a look at.

knowledge is "knowing" something for absolute certain. what do people know? i know that i am experiencing. how do i know this? because experience is what enables me to come to this conclusion. what is experience? this is experience, whatever that means. the fact is that coming to conclusions about things requires consciousness, which is acting experience. i know that i experience because that is me. it is my nature. without this, i couldn't come to a conclusion about anything. so, what do i experience? id say i expereince what i experience-different patterns and change. do i know that these exist? yes, because they are an integral part of experience. i know what i have been experiencing, and this is pattern and change. do i know what i am experiencing each moment? i remember having experienced certain things, but does that mean that i experienced them? is memory a reliable source? certainly not. therefore, can it be known that i experience change? no. change is relative to memory, which is an unreliable source. however, i experience memory. do i know this? surely, because i can remember. however, experience disappears and reappears moment to moment, and the past is only recounted by use of memory, an unreliable source. since it is impossible to live in a moment because moments disappear instantaneously, does that mean that experience is memory? if this is the case, then wouldn't that mean that experience is an unreliable source after all? so, again, what is experience? is shifts from moment to moment, and moments don't really exist because they disappear as soon as they come into being, and create new memories. truly, the only thing experienced must be the present, which disappears instantaneously, not truly existing. without memory, experience would only exist instantaneously, in the smallest unit of time possible, if indeed that is infinitely small. therefore, it would have the same significance in time as a photon's mass does in space-basically none. if experience is the present and the present is insignificant, then how can experience have a significant existence? Something must exist. the present is necessary to experience memory, but the present keeps changing, and memory keeps increasing. i know that something exists, even if it is not what i would coin experience, based on the previous conclusion. but, surely experience exists. however, perhaps experience, or change, is an illusion. if experience is an illusion, how could the illusion exist unless it is experienced? we perceive some things, and these things stem from physical reality-whatever that means. clearly, what we experience in memory and present (if this exists) seems to be grounded in some sort of foundation that causes notable patterns, and which is inherently unchangeable in its laws of pattern and causality if our own experience is physical reality. now, is any of this knowledge true, or attainable? well, we know that we expereince-which is unclear, because present experience disappears instantaneously and becomes memory, an unreliable source, because it is secondary and can be tainted. perhaps even our senses our unreliable, giving us limited information about this reality that they try to reflect upon us. we would know of the experience, if we could live in the present, rather than in memory. Do we know that we have memory? i experience memory, but perhaps this is only a memory itself, which may also be a memory. so, do we know that we have memory? i dont know. do i know that i dont know? no. do i know this to be an answer? no. knowledge is impossible. i don't know that. clearly, all this aside, forming this conclusion is a paradox.