No, he is saying that knowledge on its own ('academic "knowing"'), separate from the experience, is insufficient. This is straight from the school of thought t

No, he is saying that knowledge on its own ('academic "knowing"'), separate from the experience, is insufficient. This is straight from the school of thought that says any great truths have to be understood at the experiential level, not just the intellectual level. A pedestrian codification of this is the "Child has to learn it for themselves" statement when parents attempt to impart life wisdom on offspring but realise that in itself is not enough. They see, perhaps for the first time, the real difference between understanding and Understanding. A more specific example is love. An observer studying the biological / physiological mechanisms involved, and immersing themselves in second-hand accounts of new romance could allow themselves to intellectually approximate human love, but experiencing it directly gives them a much deeper, experiental understanding than would otherwise be possible. The case is no different when it comes to the meaning of life. The answer to that question cannot be extracted and written down as knowledge, and instead must be derived from the full life experiences of each individual seeking an answer. As the author states 'the essence of the question is about experience, not facts'.