The keyword embodied may be fruitful — there is a lot of noise around the term but embodied understanding is closer to what you want, I think. You may have to relax some ideas about how things work for a while in order to absorb/integrate it.

The knowledge defined in the article is very rational and reductionist in its presentation. I don’t mean that derogatorily, but it does mean it can’t account for all the emergent features of our existence. The reductionist approach can be useful as a set of signposts for locating reliable mechanistic constraints.

Thank you for that keyword! A quick search brought me to the wikipedia article [1], which sounds quite promising.

I agree completely with your analysis of the article by the way. Beautifully said!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition

Understanding is just knowledge of how or why something works

Intuitively, I don't believe it's that simple. But I'd love to learn more about it.

There may be more to it but at a minimum understanding usually requires you to remember a how or why, so understanding is rooted in memory as well. Perhaps also the memory of a broader cognitive context of the world and how a given objects fit in that context. Without memory there would be no capacity for understanding.

Have you ever gained a solid understanding of a complex topic after a lot of study? When you start to forget the relevant details of the context you’ve created, your understanding fades as well. “Understanding“ is just a complex function of memory to a large degree.