In Search of Primal Knowledge

(From Chapter 1)

Hello there, readers. Welcome to my book. I hope you enjoy our quest for primal enlightenment. As you will see, it is written in dialogue form and the dialogue purports to be between the author and the readers. As various readers join the dialogue, they will be referred to as Reader A, Reader B, and so forth.

READER A(An insurance salesman): Okay, I'll go along with that. First question - What do you mean by primal knowledge?

AUTHOR:According to my Webster's dictionary, primal means first in time, first in rank, basic, fundamental, or first in importance. Knowledge is defined as a clear perception of a truth or fact. In this undertaking, primal will refer, generally, to that which is basic or most important.

READER A:What are we going to be talking about?

AUTHOR:Whatever is of primal interest to the readers. Or we may seek basic information about subjects of merely secondary or tertiary interest.

READER A:Such as?

AUTHOR:Well, I don't wish to lay out the subjects. Let's go with the notion that primal truth, itself, wants to emerge, but that if we seek it too aggressively, it will pull itself in and close up like a terrapin or box turtle. On the other hand, if we proceed slowly and in a relaxed and unstructured manner, truth like Br'er Terrapin, might poke its head out and then its feet and legs, and start crawling around, enabling us to observe it.

READER A: You may have a point. So, how should we proceed in order to keep Br'er Truth from sullin' up?

AUTHOR: Well, let's just ease into an everyday kind of subject. What are some of the things that are important to you - or that you're interested in or concerned with?

READER A: Well, let's see. There's money; the opposite sex; sports. I'm particularly interested in running. I run several times a week. And I participate in an occasional 5 k or 10 k race.

AUTHOR: Speaking of running - can you tell me the difference between walking and running?

READER B {a full professor}: Oh - we're going to talk about running? If so, shouldn't you call your book In Search of Trivial Knowledge? How can running be of primal interest to anyone?

AUTHOR: Well, I'd say that to a cave man fleeing from a jungle predator, the ability to run would have been of considerable importance. Anyway, I would still like an answer to my question.

READER A: Sure, I know the difference between walking and running. But first - what's the purpose of this search for primal knowledge?

AUTHOR: Good question. In baseball, a manager will tell you that to be successful in the game, you have to know what the fundamentals are and you have to be able to execute them. So the purpose of this book is to search out and articulate the fundamentals of various aspects of the human condition - and of various human activities and endeavors. There's an awful lot of information extant in the world, today. And there are numerous ethical, religious, political, sociological, medical, artistic, aesthetic, and philosophical theories and systems, along with mountains of scientific knowledge. You would think that the great minds of the world and the great leaders, in the various fields of endeavor, could get together and make some sense out of all this.

When you consider all the conflict, disfunction, and plain stupidity rampant around the globe, and since the great ones among us are unable to agree on much of anything - much less solve the problems of the world - perhaps we ordinary folk should have a go at it. Is it not possible that the smartest people on earth might be among those who do not strive to reach alpine levels of accomplishment and prominence - and that the exalted ones are perhaps driven to such heights to compensate for a lack of good old common sense?

READER A:Hm-m. And how do we conduct this search? What is the process?

AUTHOR:Well, let's say the subject is running. And let's limit it to running by humans. First, let's name all the different types of running.

READER A:Well, there's jogging, trotting, loping, striding, and sprinting,

AUTHOR: Does walking come under running?

READER A:No, it's different.

AUTHOR: What is that difference?

READER A:Elementary - running is faster.

AUTHOR:Not necessarily. Isn't it possible for one person to jog along at a slower pace than someone who is walking fast?

READER A:Hm-m. Okay, how about this? Running uses more energy.

AUTHOR:A good point. Now if we can explain why running uses more energy than walking, we'll probably have the answer to our question.

READER A:That is the answer - as far as I can figure.

AUTHOR:Don't give up yet. I'm sure you can tell running from walking. My question, now, is how can you tell? Is it by intuitive insight or is it by intellectual analysis?

READER A:It's just common sense. When I was a child, I probably watched someone doing something that was referred to as running and someone else doing something referred to as walking. And I can always tell the difference. I just can't say what the difference is.

AUTHOR:Hey, you've just come up with a brilliant explanation of the term 'common sense'.

READER A:I have?

AUTHOR:Yes, you just said that common sense is something you know, from experience, or that you can make a fairly accurate judgement on, even though you may not be able to delineate or articulate what it is you know.

READER A:Yeah, I guess I did say that. Isn't that enough? Why do we have to get so technical?

AUTHOR:Well, for some people, climbing a mountain is exhilarating. For others, discovering and articulating a new principle is an exciting thing. And such discoveries can, often times, be beneficial to mankind.

READER A:Are you some kind of an intellectual?

AUTHOR:No, no. An intellectual usually has a PhD after his or her name. An intellectual knows just about everything there is to know in his field of endeavor - and an awful lot about everything else. I've always been interested in getting down to the basics, to the nitty gritty of things.

READER A:I had an uncle who was a PhD. He was highly intelligent. His problem was that on most every day things he was just plain dumb.

AUTHOR:What you're saying is that intelligence doesn't necessarily include wisdom.

READER B:Or, as Heraclitus said, over two thousand years ago, 'The learning of many things does not teach understanding.'

(126 pages)