Knowing Truth

NickImage

To the question of whether moderns know more than their predecessors, Richard Weaver (one of the three fathers of modern conservatism) responded by noting that “everything depends on what we mean by knowledge.” Then he offered this observation: “[T]here is no knowledge at the level of sensation.” From the perspective of anyone who is not a modernist, Weaver has to be right.

Sensory stimulation alone conveys no knowledge. Sensation alone is meaningless. Sensations do not even register in the consciousness until they have been construed. The act of construal is an interpretive act in which a sensation is connected to other sensations within a web of meaning. Humans never know a thing simply as it is: they know the thing only as it has been interpreted.

The universe has a structure in which everything is related to everything else. If the mind were utterly tabula rasa, no amount of sensation could ever lead to knowledge. Knowledge requires correct interpretation, and correct interpretation requires an interior, mental structure that matches the outer structure of reality—if not in its details, at least in its outlines.

Only one Mind fully comprehends the structure of the universe. It comprehends, not because it has exhaustively studied the universe, but because it planned the universe. Its knowledge is not derivative and inferential, but immediate and intuitive. It never studies and never learns, but simply knows. That Mind is God’s mind.

Consequently, we can speak of reality existing at three levels. One is the external reality of the universe in which all objects and events are related to one another in causal, moral, and personal ways. That reality, however, is secondary and derivative. It exists only because of a prior reality that exists in the mind of God. What God thinks constitutes the pattern, what He creates (or allows to be done) becomes the copy.

The reality that exists in the mind of God is primary. The reality that exists in the created universe is secondary. A third level—a tertiary reality—also exists, however. This level of reality resides in the perceiving mind as it attempts to grasp facts and to arrange them in their proper order. It is an interior reality that becomes the grid by which human beings conduct their lives. It tells them what to expect in the universe and either enables or disables their ability to navigate through the world.

How do people build up this inner map? More importantly, how can they ensure that it actually matches the external reality of the immanent universe? This is one of the most important questions that we can ever ask.

Since the triumph of nominalism, Baconianism, and modernity, the common assumption has been that the best way of gaining knowledge about the world is to look at the world itself. This theory, this metaphysical dream, has much to commend it. Who can deny that the application of the scientific method has brought significant understanding of the world in which we live?

The problem is that the methods of modernity in general, and the scientific method in particular, must assume a great deal in order to work. None of those assumptions rest upon the method per se, nor are they demonstrable through that method. Science works, but only within a grid of presuppositions. Change the presuppositions and the conclusions change as a matter of course.

The connection between pre-understandings and conclusions was part of the impulse that drove the development of phenomenology (as pursued, e.g., by Edmund Husserl along with Moritz Geiger, Alexander Pfänder, and others). They wanted to know how the mind filters perceptions so as to arrive at knowledge, and they wanted to know whether the end result actually counted as knowledge. Then Heidegger effectively made the perceiving subject (Dasein) into part of what was being interpreted.

What came after Heidegger was a radicalization of perspective that is known as postmodernism. The postmodern has noticed the flimsiness of the props that supported modernity. Instead of seeking knowledge from structures located in an external reality, the postmodernist supposes that (to some degree) the structures are provided from within the perceiving subject (or culture, tradition, language, metanarrative, or whatever).

In postmodernism, each way of construing the facts, each grid, becomes a Weltanschauung, a world-view. The problem lies in the difficulty of mediating world-views that diverge widely and even contradict each other. Is anything left except the will to power? Postmodernism has yet to provide any clear detour away from nihilism.

Against postmoderns, Christians affirm that the universe has an order or structure that exists outside of the individual mind, culture, or metanarrative. Against modernism, Christians insist that the best way of knowing the universe is not to begin with the universe itself. Rather, the best recourse is to gain knowledge of primary reality, i.e., reality as it is held within the mind of God.

Of course, if they had to figure out the mind of God “from beneath,” reasoning their way to God on the basis of perceivable phenomena, Christians would find themselves in a vicious cycle. One cannot know secondary reality (the universe) without knowing primary reality (the mind of God). What is the use of trying to reason one’s way to the mind of God on the basis of a secondary reality (the universe) that one cannot know until one already has His mind?

No, if we humans are to have the mind of God, then God must reveal it to us. Until we have such a revelation, we literally cannot know anything. Until we have some structure as a starting point, we have no way to interpret any of the sensations that come to us. Unless God speaks, then we are perpetually agnostic.

Consequently, the Christian must begin with two truths: God is and God has spoken. These truths can be challenged. They can even be rejected. Every challenge or rejection, however, comes with its own epistemic price tag.

To suggest that God has spoken is not to say that everything we know must be contained in direct revelation. What it does mean is that God must provide us with at least the general framework that determines our interpretation and understanding of the universe. Revelation does not communicate all knowledge, but what it does communicate is what makes knowledge possible. What God reveals become the primary “given” upon which all knowledge is built.

Where, then, has God spoken? What is His revelation? How is it to be appropriated? These questions merit further consideration at a later time.

At the Name of Jesus
Caroline M. Noel (1817-1877)

At the Name of Jesus every knee shall bow,
Every tongue confess him King of glory now;
‘Tis the Father’s pleasure we should call him Lord,
Who from the beginning was the mighty Word.

At his voice creation sprang at once to sight,
All the angel faces, all the hosts of light,
Thrones and Dominations, stars upon their way,
All the heavenly orders, in their great array.

Humbled for a season, to receive a Name
From the lips of sinners, unto whom he came,
Faithfully he bore it spotless to the last,
Brought it back victorious, when from death he passed;

Bore it up triumphant, with its human light,
Through all ranks of creatures, to the central height,
To the throne of Godhead, to the Father’s breast;
Filled it with the glory of that perfect rest.

Name him, brothers, name him, with love as strong as death,
But with awe and wonder and with bated breath;
He is God the Savior, he is Christ the Lord,
Ever to be worshiped, trusted, and adored.

In your hearts enthrone him; there let him subdue
All that is not holy, all that is not true;
Crown him as your Captain in temptation’s hour;
Let his will enfold you in its light and power.

Brothers, this Lord Jesus shall return again,
With his Father’s glory with his angel train;
For all wreaths of empire meet upon his brow,
And our hearts confess him King of glory now.

[node:bio/kevin-t-bauder body]

2543 reads

There are 18 Comments

RPittman's picture

As one who is more often Dr. Bauder's critic rather than his fan, I have to give him two thumbs up on this one. I am in substantial agreement with what he states here. It will be interesting to see where he is going and exactly where he lands.

Paul Henebury's picture

With respect, this is a strange way to talk about reality. Beyond God "reality" is what He creates, not what is in His mind - which is all knowledge of all possibilities. To speak of reality as being principally in God's mind comes pretty close to a dualistic theory of the world. If the world is but a copy (or reflection?) of the primary reality we are on "Platonic" turf surely?

It can be said that a painting is in the mind of the artist before it appears on the canvass, but we are not accustomed to think that the thought is the primary reality and the external creation is a copy of that primary reality.

Further, if "revelation does not communicate all knowledge," then all knowledge is not revelatory. Which parts of knowledge are non-revelatory?

Dr Bauder has more to say on this, so it will be interesting how he ties this all together.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Caleb S's picture

Paul Henebury wrote:
With respect, this is a strange way to talk about reality. Beyond God "reality" is what He creates, not what is in His mind - which is all knowledge of all possibilities. To speak of reality as being principally in God's mind comes pretty close to a dualistic theory of the world. If the world is but a copy (or reflection?) of the primary reality we are on "Platonic" turf surely?

It can be said that a painting is in the mind of the artist before it appears on the canvass, but we are not accustomed to think that the thought is the primary reality and the external creation is a copy of that primary reality.

Further, if "revelation does not communicate all knowledge," then all knowledge is not revelatory. Which parts of knowledge are non-revelatory?

Dr Bauder has more to say on this, so it will be interesting how he ties this all together.


If I may offer a small thought on the matter. In context, what Bauder appears to be saying with his "revelation does not communicated all knowledge" is the obvious. Open heart surgery is not found in the Bible. The Bible is not a manual on plumbing. It is not a manual on how to assemble a computer, or how to assemble computers through the different periods of time in which computers have existed. It does not contain all knowledge. However, it contains the most necessary elements, the building blocks as it were, toward a proper understanding of reality. Again, in context, Bauder is talking about how a proper interpretation of reality is possible. So while Scripture does not provide all knowledge; it does provide us with the essential elements that we need in order to perceive reality correctly (in a non-autonomous fashion). There is a distinction between special revelation and general revelation that your question appears to be missing. The two are not on the same level.

and that is all that I have time for at the moment. . .

hope that helps a little.

Dick Dayton's picture

This article drew my mind back to Francis Schaeffer's "He Is There And He Is Not Silent." God has revealed Himself, and, within the parameters of human limitations, we may grasp what he has revealed about Himself. As a former physics student, we must agree with Kevin that we make many underlying assumptions when we begin to look at the universe around us, and we must be cautious tht these assumptions themselves are evaluated in the light of what God has told us about Himself. Our intruments, the universe itself, and certainly our perceiving minds are all affected by the Fall. Only God's written revelation is inerrant and totally trustworthy, and, even there, we must be cautious about "reading in" our own preconceived notions to that revelation.
Let us be thankful that the gospel is clear, otherwise we would never grasp it.

Dick Dayton

Paul Henebury's picture

Caleb, I readily grant that Dr Bauder meant what you indicated he meant. And I don't want to attribute things to him that he didn't say. If he meant "Special Revelation does not communicate all knowledge" I would agree. But between them, General and Special Revelation are the means of human knowledge. I'm just trying to accommodate this with Bauder's previous assertions. But I am content to wait.

Thank you for the correction.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Caleb S's picture

Quote:
Further, if "revelation does not communicate all knowledge," then all knowledge is not revelatory. Which parts of knowledge are non-revelatory?

This would be an answer. That which God has not revealed.
Deut 29:29 "The hidden things belong to the LORD our God, but the revealed things belong to us and our children forever, so that we may follow all the words of this law."

RPittman's picture

Paul Henebury wrote:
Caleb, I readily grant that Dr Bauder meant what you indicated he meant. And I don't want to attribute things to him that he didn't say. If he meant "Special Revelation does not communicate all knowledge" I would agree. But between them, General and Special Revelation are the means of human knowledge. I'm just trying to accommodate this with Bauder's previous assertions. But I am content to wait.

Thank you for the correction.

When one speaks of human knowledge, he is speaking of something different from God's knowledge. God's knowledge is exhaustive and never changes. As humans, we can only know in part and tentatively. Human knowledge changes. Scientific laws must be modified in light of new "knowledge" and understanding. Recent data from CERN has physicists in a tither. Seems that they may have found a particle faster than light which challenges Einstein's basic assumption in General and Special Relativity. I am with Dr. Bauder in his statement.

RPittman's picture

Paul Henebury wrote:
With respect, this is a strange way to talk about reality. Beyond God "reality" is what He creates, not what is in His mind - which is all knowledge of all possibilities. To speak of reality as being principally in God's mind comes pretty close to a dualistic theory of the world. If the world is but a copy (or reflection?) of the primary reality we are on "Platonic" turf surely?

It can be said that a painting is in the mind of the artist before it appears on the canvass, but we are not accustomed to think that the thought is the primary reality and the external creation is a copy of that primary reality.

Further, if "revelation does not communicate all knowledge," then all knowledge is not revelatory. Which parts of knowledge are non-revelatory?

Dr Bauder has more to say on this, so it will be interesting how he ties this all together.

Bauder is not near dualism. He is saying, I think, that reality corresponds to what is in God's mind and God's mind corresponds to reality. Human analogies fall short of making the point.

I'm attracted by Van Til's view that all human knowledge is analogical to God's knowledge. God has reserved some things to Himself (Deuteronomy 29:29) and His thoughts are beyond our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8). He also posited the necessity of apparent paradoxes. We're struggling to work out the kinks in our strands of knowledge. Nothing works.

Paul Henebury's picture

Caleb, Deut. 29:29 refers to things that God has not vouchsafed to man. Therefore, they are not knowable. Hence, not revelatory either.

Brother Pittman (sorry, don't know your first name): Your first comment to me (#7) is confusing. Bauder was speaking of man's knowledge in context. So was I. I agree with your point as far as the differences between man's knowledge, which is derivative and partial, and God's knowledge, which is intuitive and exhaustive. But why does it address what I said?

Secondly, if primary reality is in God's mind then it is not external to Him. The reality which is outside of him is "secondary," which is as much as saying, it is not as "real" as what is in God's mind. Usually, we do not talk this way. We say an idea is in the mind and it may become reality. Once it becomes a "realization" of the idea it has its own reality, and this reality is primary. The world does have its own integrity apart from God, even though it depends on God.

It may be my fault, but again, I fail to see how your last paragraph in #8 addresses the matter I was discussing.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Caleb S's picture

Paul Henebury wrote:
Caleb, Deut. 29:29 refers to things that God has not vouchsafed to man. Therefore, they are not knowable. Hence, not revelatory either.

Brother Pittman (sorry, don't know your first name): Your first comment to me (#7) is confusing. Bauder was speaking of man's knowledge in context. So was I. I agree with your point as far as the differences between man's knowledge, which is derivative and partial, and God's knowledge, which is intuitive and exhaustive. But why does it address what I said?

Secondly, if primary reality is in God's mind then it is not external to Him. The reality which is outside of him is "secondary," which is as much as saying, it is not as "real" as what is in God's mind. Usually, we do not talk this way. We say an idea is in the mind and it may become reality. Once it becomes a "realization" of the idea it has its own reality, and this reality is primary. The world does have its own integrity apart from God, even though it depends on God.

It may be my fault, but again, I fail to see how your last paragraph in #8 addresses the matter I was discussing.


(1) Regarding Deut 29:29, yes they are knowable for God; therefore, revelation (in its broadest sense) is a smaller subset of what God knows. Again, to make the same point another way, if I knew all of what you refer to as reality, then I would still not know all that God knows, for my knowledge would then still be bound by time, and God knows all things regardless of time. Therefore, even if all of revelation in the broadest sense possible were known (at this time), it would still only be a smaller subset of God's comprehensive knowledge of all things.

(2)Regarding the dualism issue: The analogy of an artist is not quite up to par with the metaphysics of God to His universe. I'm not saying that you are one, but this is a very common problem with Arminian theologians. I'll explain. The artist, architect, composer, book-writer, etc all have a blueprint in the mind, and then it gets fleshed out in various forms. What you describe as "usual" is correct. However, it is correct only within the sphere of this creation's metaphysic. The illustration breaks apart completely when the following is considered. When the person makes the object, whatever it is, then it exists; and it exists independently of the creator. The same cannot be said of this universe/Creation. Yes, God had a blueprint in mind. Yes, He created. But, NO, creation is not independent of Him. Creation is continuously, moment-by-moment dependent upon God for its continually sustained existence. This is not a recreation, but it is a sustaining. Wayne Grudem's chapter 16 Systematic Theology spells this out in much more detail. No One Like Him by Feinberg spells this out in even more thoroughness. If this point is questioned, I could produce quite a few verses to support the point.

The point is this. The sum total of the person of God (which includes His mind) is primary reality. He alone is eternal. He alone is self-sufficient. He alone is dependent on no one. Creation is secondary reality, as described already; is is not as real as God is in the sense as described above. This is not a dualism, for it does not admit to two ultimate equal powers competing; it only admits of one ultimate. Now, certainly, as you say, the world does have an existence apart from God, for we do not want to advocate a pantheism, where God is no longer distinct from His creation.

Edit: fixed typo you mention below.

Caleb S's picture

Caleb S wrote:
The point is this. The sum total of the person of God (which includes His mind) is primary reality. He alone is eternal. He alone is self-sufficient. He alone is dependent on no one. Creation is secondary reality, as described already; is is not as real as God is in the sense as described above. This is not a dualism, for it does not admit to two ultimate equal powers competing; it only admits of one ultimate. Now, certainly, as you say, the word does have an existence apart from God, for we do not want to advocate a pantheism, where God is no longer distinct from His creation.

The underlined word should be "world". My editing time ran out, so here is me noticing my typo. There are probably others that I missed.

Paul Henebury's picture

I do not have the time to address your comments, except to say that neither I nor Dr. Bauder (in context) were talking about what God knows, but what man knows (which is wholly derived from revelation). Please revisit my original comments with that understanding.

But also, you claim,

Quote:
What you describe as "usual" is correct. However, it is correct only within the sphere of this creation's metaphysic.

Very well. I suppose I must have missed this in my reading all these years. If, then, it is "usual" to speak of primary reality as being in the mind of God, and secondary reality as being created, I have overlooked it. Perhaps you can fill the void by citing authorities who employ this language?

I have more to say but I also have visitors.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Caleb S's picture

Paul Henebury wrote:
I do not have the time to address your comments, except to say that neither I nor Dr. Bauder (in context) were talking about what God knows, but what man knows (which is wholly derived from revelation). Please revisit my original comments with that understanding.

But also, you claim,

Quote:
What you describe as "usual" is correct. However, it is correct only within the sphere of this creation's metaphysic.

Very well. I suppose I must have missed this in my reading all these years. If, then, it is "usual" to speak of primary reality as being in the mind of God, and secondary reality as being created, I have overlooked it. Perhaps you can fill the void by citing authorities who employ this language?

I have more to say but I also have visitors.


Regarding sources: I already mentioned two sources and alluded to the Bible, it appears these must have been missed (they are in italics). The point is that God alone is self-sufficient and self-existent; creation is not; hence, creation is on a lower ontological level than God. And as the mind of God is a part of who God is, then there is a clear ontological difference between the mind of God and creation. In Van Til's language, there is a Creator/creature distinction. I don't know why this isn't obvious.

Regarding Dr. Bauder's and your comments: If Dr. Bauder is not talking about what God knows, then I must certainly be misunderstanding this.

Quote:
Only one Mind fully comprehends the structure of the universe. It comprehends, not because it has exhaustively studied the universe, but because it planned the universe. Its knowledge is not derivative and inferential, but immediate and intuitive. It never studies and never learns, but simply knows. That Mind is God’s mind.
Dr. Bauder is grounding human knowing upon God's mind. Human objectivity is built upon God and not upon man's autonomy. So for you to tell me that Dr. Bauder was not talking about what God knows is nonsensical. If "you" were not talking about what God knows, then we are at an impasse in discussing human knowing because I'm not going to straw man what Bauder said; or at least I will try not to do so. But if you are not going to talk about what God knows, then you will be presenting a straw man of what Dr. Bauder has discussed.

Also, in your own words, if you are going to talk about revelation, then you have to talk about Who this revelation is of. And once you talk of the Who, then the Who's mind is necessarily a part of who the Who is. Your comments cannot help but assume God's mind (what God knows).

Paul Henebury's picture

Caleb,

Dr Bauder's post is entilted, "Knowing Truth." Who do you suppose the adjective is referring to, God or man?

Further, his whole series so far has been about human knowing. Read carefully:

Quote:
One cannot know secondary reality (the universe) without knowing primary reality (the mind of God)

Who cannot know? God or man?

Quote:
No, if we humans are to have the mind of God, then God must reveal it to us. Until we have such a revelation, we literally cannot know anything. Until we have some structure as a starting point, we have no way to interpret any of the sensations that come to us. Unless God speaks, then we are perpetually agnostic.

Revelation does not communicate all knowledge, but what it does communicate is what makes knowledge[whose knowledge? God's or human? ] possible. What God reveals become the primary “given” upon which all knowledge [God's knowledge or ours? ] is built.

You claim,

Quote:
for you to tell me that Dr. Bauder was not talking about what God knows is nonsensical
To you it may be. Perhaps you have an axe to grind?

My request is simple enough. Please fit my remarks within this context, not one you prefer them to be in.

You have ducked my question about "usual" ways to talk about reality. I cannot find this language in either book you refer me to. If I have missed it you will, of course, be able to assist me in locating the said words. So let's try again: if it is usual to say that what is in God's mind is "primary reality" and of what is created as "secondary," who else says it? This is not the same question as asking, "who came first?", or "which is contingent?"

I am very familiar with CVT's works, but this has nothing to do with the Creator-creature distinction. Dr Bauder and I have debated Van Til in a previous thread. He doesn't much like Van Til; I do. But this isn't about that. Try to grasp what I am talking about and address it. But please stop trying to give me basic refreshers of systematic theology. Unless, of course, they address how WE know reality!

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Caleb S's picture

As I'm getting the distinct impression that we are talking past one another, getting no where, then I am bowing out of this discussion. If someone else wants to help bridge the impasse, then by all means I would like to read it. Apparently I'm not grasping something because I've explained things a few times and it appears to not have scratched the itch. Can someone tell me what I'm missing? Am I missing anything? My only axe to grind is seeing Bauder correctly represented and not needlessly criticized (which is why I quoted his words about God), but it appears (to Paul) that I'm not following him and thus not understanding the criticism. At any rate, for the sake of Christian charity and not pointlessly debating back and forth, I'm bowing out.

Paul, as you are the Dr. and I'm not, I am taking the road of just leaving it as you have said. Apparently, I'm not following your criticism. I will defer to your expertise and not push matters more, even though I have more to say.

Paul Henebury's picture

I have stated that I agree with your comments about God, and I agree with the Bauder quotation you cite in #13; even saying something similar in #9. Why you have overlooked these statements of mine about God I don't know. E.g. to R. Pittman:

Quote:
I agree with your point as far as the differences between man's knowledge, which is derivative and partial, and God's knowledge, which is intuitive and exhaustive...

My problem here is not with Bauder's view of God's knowledge, but chiefly with the language he uses in reference to reality.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Caleb S's picture

Paul Henebury wrote:
I have stated that I agree with your comments about God, and I agree with the Bauder quotation you cite in #13; even saying something similar in #9. Why you have overlooked these statements of mine about God I don't know. E.g. to R. Pittman:

Quote:
I agree with your point as far as the differences between man's knowledge, which is derivative and partial, and God's knowledge, which is intuitive and exhaustive...

My problem here is not with Bauder's view of God's knowledge, but chiefly with the language he uses in reference to reality.


After sitting on this discussion a few days, and after reading the quoted material above, I've decided to interact once more. Hopefully, these comments will add clarity and demonstrate the perspective from which I was operating.

Illustration
Sometimes, from one denying the Trinity, the objection is raised that the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible. This is taken as grounds for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity. The truth of the rejection is found in the reality that the word "trinity" certainly is not found in the Bible. However, this is too restrictive of a criteria; hence, the error is found. While the word may not be found in the Bible, the doctrine is certainly found. Multiple texts can be found which describe the individual members as persons, as possessing attributes of deity, as being called deity, as having labels ascribed to them that are virtually synonymous with being called deity, as having OT texts quoted regarding them that are explicitly of the LORD in the OT, etc. The point being that a semantic absence does not constitute a conceptual absence; the lack of the word does not mean that the doctrine is not found in Scripture.

Our Discussion
If your point of disagreement has been with reference to Bauder's wording, my point of contention has consistently been that what those words communicate is clearly found. If your point of disagreement has been regarding terminology, then my counterpoint has been with regard to what the word(s) have been communicating. I'm sure I'm not as widely read as you, so I can offer no objection regarding your critique of the wording in particular, and I am inclined to agree with the limited knowledge expressed in this discussion. However, my point has consistently been with regard to the meaning of the word(s) that Bauder has used, and I do find others who agree with him and state the same doctrine. I added the opening illustration to highlight what I "think" is causing the impasse and to introduce this section. I hope that this adds clarity. Thank you for your patience with me. Often, I'll assume something in a discussion, but it does not get expressed (which sometimes leads to talking past one another), and the unexpressed assumption was that of the opening illustration: that semantic absence does not constitute a conceptual absence.

Caleb S's picture

After some further reflection, another comment needs to be made. I have not noticed Dr. Bauder directly dealing with the issue of autonomy in all of this, and especially its connection to metaphysical autonomy. It would seem that this is utterly crucial, but it has been omitted or passed over. I am just posting this to point out this oddity, and I'm posting this wondering why this needful issue has been omitted. By "metaphysical autonomy" I hope that this is understood as a tactful way of describing a more debated term(s).

It just seems odd that the root has not been hit, but rather second tier issues have been argued, and perhaps this my be my own prioritizing of the issues, but this prioritizing is also the point that many others have aimed at.

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.