I myself firmly believe in apophatic theology, however, apophatic theology ultimately appears cataphatic in a certain sense - I shall elaborate on this herein. In the assertion that only negations can be used to describe an infinite and transcendent being, as is posited by some, a paradox arises. To even formulate the idea that a completely transcendent God does not possess a given quality is to bestow a quality unto God, that being the lack of the possession of a given quality. All negations are seemingly affirmative in the affirmation of negation. This is the same thing that would apply in relation to presuming there can be something without affirmation, and only negation, as is in the situation at hand, which is in reference to a completely transcendent God.
However, at the same time, the conclusion that a negation is also an affirmation would mean that anything which does not exist has an affirmative property to it. Nothingness is inherently the absence of anything, It is something which is not anything. Within these negations are affirmations. Interestingly on the polar opposite ends of the hypothetical and irrational spectrum between nothing and totality, there exists a shared property between nothingness and totality. This shared property in question would be the negation of all things, presented in an affirmative manner. The affirmative negation of all things is the shared property between nothingness and totality.
Given that affirmation and negation are seemingly equal in all but scope, it could be argued that the shared affirmative negation in the description of nothingness and infinity could equate the two. If infinity were to be understood as God, then this idea would conclude by saying that God is nothing and that God does not exist. Yet I would posit that God is supreme and transcendent, above our quantifiers and logic. This greatly parallels a similar postulation that can be found in the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius the Aeropagite; he declares God cannot be understood as being “non-being”, but rather “over-being.” So too do I acknowledge God being “over.” In this case, I posit God to be above logic. At least in essence, this should be the case, but this largely relates to the notion that God is unknowable in essence.
It should be apparent that such a transcendent being can thus not be known directly due to its transcendent nature being above comprehension, as this conceptual God would likewise be infinite, which is something that we cannot comprehend. Yet for there to be any relation between creator and creation, an uncreated force that is immanent and accessible, is necessary. This intermediary would be what I describe as the energies. The term “energies” is what is used in Palamist theology - which I am a proponent of.
God cannot necessarily be understood as being bound by logic, and may not even be rationally understood as operating in logic, as logic is contained within the finite world, something which the conceptual God I am referring to transcends above. Though this is not to say that this is the only coherent understanding in regard to the relationship between God and logic. However, by even speaking of God, he is wrapped up within our logical framework, as the sentences spoken amount to logical claims. In the work of Lao Tzu, the same dilemma is manifest. In speaking of how something cannot be spoken of - which applies in regard to the Eternal Tao, as well as the conceptual God that I am writing about - what cannot be spoken of is still spoken of.
Our logic is not infinite, therefore, our logic cannot even begin to describe an infinite being - not even by negations. It may seem laughably contradictory for me to say this, as I am doing so in finite logic, but I will firmly say so anyway in reiteration, this which I have been indicating throughout my ponderings. This is, that a transcendent God is completely transcendent above our logical framework, and thus cannot be defined within our finite logic which stems from our mere finite understanding. Instead, I posit that our frame of reference, and subsequent definition and quantification should refer to the emanation, rather than the fullness of a transcendent God, who I believe is incomprehensible in his essence. In this, evidently, I align with Palamist theology, believing in an essence-energy distinction.
In regard to the energies of God, that which we can know, it would remain feasible to employ descriptive terms. It is still logical to employ negations, albeit by affirmations, in the description. In regard to energies (in emanation), there is no basis for precluding a transcendent status from something that is knowable, thus there is no basis for precluding a transcendent status from knowable energies of a transcendent God. This is because not all forms of transcendence are equal. The posited transcendence of the essence is absolute transcendence over everything, which would differ from a form of transcendence that regards something finite transcending above something else, or a large group of other things, which are finite. The energies seemingly would transcend above almost all, with certain exceptions, including that of understanding, for the energies can be understood.
With all of this being said, it still persists that the essence of this conceptual God - which I posit is something that cannot be spoken of - is yet being spoken of through the postulation that it cannot be spoken of. A similar variation of this concept can be found in apophatic theology, specifically, within the paradox I have identified within apophatic theology. This paradoxical situation is seemingly unavoidable. I truly have a gigantic bullet to bite. Frankly, I have no idea what to do. This does not disprove God, but rather, it invalidates all which I have spoken of concerning the essence, which even now I am stuck speaking of again. My words are mere rubbish in this instance.
However, I do believe that apophatic theology is superior to cataphatic theology, at least in regard to its aim. However, it is still lacking in comparison to the hypothetical unspoken, unarticulated, and unthought way of referring to God that I have alluded to; reaching this will remain to be an unattainable goal.
Thank you for reading.
- Eli Gardenswartz
Comments