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."