It is justifiable to assert that certain knowledge could not be disseminated without the invention of writing. One could say that humanity needed the knowledge of writing before further knowledge could be explored. More recently this effect is even more conspicuous: we could hardly crunch the numbers from the LHC without computers.
Certain knowledge need be applied before further advances in theoretical knowledge can be made.
This seem to suggest that knowledge available for application (real knowledge, not theoretical) limits our possible knowledge, and the scope of our theoretical knowledge limits what we can do...
Question: Is there then a logical argument that what we do know is always less than what we can know?
Is our ontology necessarily incomplete?