Edgar Morin (2008), who brings to the epistemological discussion a challenge that expresses

the complexity of the study of a category which structures and at the same time is structured.
Such difficulty of interpretation is at the heart of this discussion that raises the question of how
to study, or think of something that in essence reflects its own foundations that give rise to the
very object of study. Something like a feedback, something recursive, something that reveals a
movement out of knowledge, but at the same time refers to its core.

Morin organizes thinking knowledge knowledge

It is not necessary to understand the structures of knowledge to know, institute, conceptualize

or change our mind.

[...] the notion of knowledge seems to us unique and evident, until the moment we question it,
when we focus it is fragmented, diversified, multiplying in countless notions where each one
generates new questions (MORIN 2008 , p.16).

What is knowledge? What is the reality? How do you know yourself? Is it possible for
consciousness to access the external world? Is there an external world? Can scientific
knowledge have access to the real, to what really exists? Is there what really exists? What is
scientific knowledge? Can knowledge know knowledge? What can the human being know?
These are basic questions of contemporary epistemology, the answer to which is becoming
increasingly difficult. In his book Method 3: Knowledge of Knowledge (Morin, 1999), Edgar
Morin presents an anthropology of knowledge that, by addressing the bio-anthropological
conditions of the possibilities of knowledge,

However, it is perceived that there is an even greater convergence in the approach of quantum
theory with respect to the principle of uncertainty and quantum entanglement. The feeling of
extreme uncertainty reported by Morin is expressed as a nuisance, which deprives the comfort
zone of those who think that knowledge is set, elucidated and unquestionable.

The conception of knowledge, in the context of objectivity, precludes its reduction to

structuring categories, being it a primary structure

A movement is perceived that allows both the plunge into the specifics of the concepts and a
detachment to the understanding of the relationships of these concepts, bringing what is to
know the sensible, the observable. This exercise allows us to understand the linearities, the
objective concepts and also the complexity and fragility of the established concepts.

For Morin (2008), no cognitive system would be able to know itself thoroughly or validate
completely from its own knowledge tools. Therefore, to know knowledge is necessary to
renounce completeness.

KNOWLEDGE AS FIELD

The relationship between objects was treated from the conception of an interaction that was
processed directly and instantaneously, called action at a distance, which prevailed for a long
time in the areas of electricity, magnetism and gravitation.
Piaget (1974) notes that learning is always associated with a relationship, with an interaction of
actors capable of generating a semantic restructuring, a resignified worldview, a dialogism
capable of categorizing, inventing or reinventing concepts.

Vygotsky (1989) brings the relationship of symbolic instruments as structuring and discusses
language as an engine of attitudinal change that transforms the socio-cultural environment,
focusing on the concept of a zone of close development, which enables a reference between
learning and cognitive ability to solve problems. problems individually or collectively.

The fields described in Table 1 are well known. The source of each field is able to modify the
configuration of the context, giving rise to a relief expressed through the potential that, in the
presence of other objects of the same nature, give rise to inherent forces in these interactions.

Thinking of knowledge as a field refers to a topological configuration, a shape-based

configuration, similar to that presented by known fields. Therefore, it is necessary to identify
the context, the generating source, the potential and the strength inherent in the knowledge
field. This metaphor between the concept of field and knowledge is the purpose of this
research, based on the following assumption: identify processes capable of ratifying or giving
rise to other configurative characteristics of the knowledge field.

The knowledge field emerges in the communicational context, which is reconfigured by the
sources of cognition that I call cognitive entities, which tension the context, giving rise to
potentials of knowledge that, in contact with other cognitive entities, enable the emergence of
roaming capable of generating traffic. between sabers potentials, thus revealing learning.

The emergence of learning requires the presence of other generating sources, other sources of
cognition that cause interaction, interference, and intentionality.