question or disscusion concerning mans knoweldge

You appear ( ) to be asking basic epistemological questions about which volumes have been written. I suggest you start here ....
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
...but don't expect too many answers !

Does the use of the word basic implie an arogant standpoint?

Dont expect to many answers... what does that signifi in your thinking my assumption would be skeptisisim applying to philosophy of knowledge. In other words you might think that we are basically ignorant

Not arrogance....merely underestimation of the complexities.

The first problem you might encounter is the inextricable relationship between epistemology (theories of knowledge) and ontology (theories of existence).
And emerging from that quagmire it may begin to dawn on you that every word in a sentence like "How do we know X" (including the "we") becomes a potential candidate for analysis.

Give me and example please

Okay. Elementary examples.
1."We" in the statement "we are sure of an eternal life" immediately delimits "we" to a community of believers with requirements in justifying their existence.
2. "We know" that Pythagoras' theorem is valid assumes that the "we"are intelligent humans familiar with the non-natural (abstract) concept of a planar right angled triangle. (Note that it is not valid for non-planar triangles as in non-Euclidean geometry...a topic now a requirement in theories in physics)

Im not sure that is what i meant, my fault for not clarifying.
In which was do ontogoly and epistamogoly intersect and in which ways does this giv rise to problems?

And if i misunderstood we can drop this thread

In the epistemological question "How do we know X", the ontological status of X is presumed to be agreed. For example, in the statement "how do we know the universe is expanding" the nature of "universe" as a thing understood is not questioned. But "universe" is by no means an agreed concept as any physicist will tell you. It follows that what we know depends on the nature of what we think "exists" ....an ontological question, but conversely the nature of that "existence" depends on our knowledge of what properties that existence implies....an epistemological question.

Oh so ontologly is a branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being

As indeed is the "justification" aspect of epistemology.

It seems their all related because if we are able to know a thing firsr we must distingius what it is, what we know about it, and how it ties in with our exostence but then all areas of philosophy then cpuld be counculed to be epistomogoly because all things are not things but rather, things are what we know about them rather than the thing itself. Im useing a phone so spelling error happen if i made too many to the point that comprehension was lost notify me

Epistomogoly and logic actually,
Also i cant spell

And language.

Alas, the word "is" is itself so problematic to philosophers that there have been moves to replace the verb "to be" by "Eprime".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
But....I gave you a Rorty reference on the other thread which outlines his position as a Philosophical Pragmatist. Such a position involves simply looking at meaning with respect to specific contexts and seeing "what works". In this, he follows Wittgenstein who thought much of "philosophy" was generated artificially when "language went on holiday". Your own esoteric interests involving "ineffability" might give you a clue to this type of thinking.