BJ,

Thanks for the clarification. I was in fact defining ineffable as unknowable instead of incommunicable. This also helps explain why I had a tough time with Hick in my paper for religious pluralism. So, I agree with the discussion. As Dr. Lewis always says, "define your terms."

Also, I am not sure if you got my email change. It is iulvr@excel.com instead of @myexcel.com.


Paul,

Thanks for the link. I read it and I think you might be right. He does sound as if he may be a neoplatonist or some version thereof. The via negativa reminds me of monistic meditation and a little of gnosticism and the view that matter is evil and must be overcome. I also agree that I find Plotinus confusing and I attribute this mostly to the limited reading we have had on him. I wish we had the time to do more reading of primary source materials instead of Jones' interpretation of them. I am reminded of a C.S. Lewis essay entitled "On the Reading of Old Books." In it he states that it has been one of his main endeavours to "persuade the young that first-hand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than second-handd knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire."

My friend Plotinus

Check out http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/writingweblogs/index.html. This guy might even be a neoplatonist...

I am still confused about Plotinus, but I think that is more due to limited exposure at this stage. I am interested in learning more about via negativa though.

Btw, I tried posting this as a comment on Matt's posting, but the comment didn't display.

ineffebility

Matt,

brother, I believe that "ineffable" means that something is completely incommunicable, that is, it is impossible to communicate anything about it -- but it does not mean unknowable.
But, even claiming that anything IS ineffable is a contradiction because even communicating its ineffebility is something about it that you communicated.

Based on your post, I think you beleive that ineffebility is that we cannot know something, and I don't believe that's what it means. Any help here from anyone?

I'll email you Dr. Lewis's email.

-BJ

Dr. Lewis & Plotinus

If anyone has Dr. Lewis' address could you send it to me.

I have been thinking about the discussion we had last Thursday in History of Philosophy regarding Plotinus' view of the Good. I still find it difficult to affirm that Plotinus was actually arguing that the Good is ineffable. This may very well be the logical conclusion to his views but I do not find in his writing that he is directly claiming that this is the case. Instead he seems to be arguing that it is impossible to describe the Good, not that the Good is unknowable. He even seems to claim to "know" the Good through a mystical experience. This is a subtle but important distinction. I think we were all a bit miffed at Jones and his less than honest handling of Christianity and to ascribe ineffability to Plotinus is doing much the same thing.

Do not get me wrong. I am not arguing that I agree with Plotinus but I do want to make sure that anyone that I am engaging is understood for what they say and mean and not just what I think they are saying.

blogger folks getting on

Becky, a lot of people have come to me saying they are trying to get onto the blog to post but cannot. Can you help them out? One person thinks you need to send each person an invite individually instead of en masse.... I have no idea, but just wanted to pass it along.

-BJ