Ok, fine. Absolute non ignorance is the same as omniscience.
True. If you are non ignorant, it is impossible to have any ignorance. But it’s not impossible to know what it’s like to be ignorant. If you think it is, then show me the paradox that follows.
Yes, all beings that lack omniscience (absolute non-ignorance) are ignorant in some way.
What exactly is it that every other being knows that that which is non-ignorant doesn’t know? I’ll take a guess from everything you’ve said so far:
Is it what it’s like to be ignorant/lack omniscience?
If yes, then I’ve already addressed that point in multiple ways. I know what it’s like to have less than x amount of knowledge than I have now whilst at same time having x amount of knowledge. Do you see a problem with this?
A square-circle is a contradiction/an irrational thing. If your argument amounts to omniscience is absurd because that which is all-knowing cannot know what a square-circle is, then this isn’t a problem with the concept of omniscience, this is a problem with your argument. Your argument contains a contradiction which indicates faulty reasoning. If I responded to your argument that contains a contradiction with an argument that contains a contradiction it would be like this. Yes an omniscient being knows what a square-circle is. See the problem in accepting paradoxes/contradictions in your definitions or reasoning?
You say, an omniscient being must know what a square-circle is
Response if a square-circle is not absurd, then an all-knowing being knows what a square-circle is.
Except a square-circle is absurd and the latter two sentences are rationally useless/meaningless and should never enter rational discourse.