Embracing the Unknowable: Paradigm of Ineffability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend the author to include more relevant literature on the ineffable, especially defining more clearly the negative language of mystical theology. What does it mean? Include references to Rudolf Otto and Abraham Joshua Heschel on the ineffable.

Also, the phrase "the Absolute Ineffable" sounds too wordy and it gets away from the main idea behind ineffability. Looking for precision in language of the Divine is an impossible task. But the author can make a valid argument in regards to the divine attributes and how affirmative this cataphatic mystical theology can be in order to communicate the divine mysteries.

There are some errors of punctuation. Look inside the footnotes. Make sure to cite all sources in parentheses when quoting or paraphrasing. Have better transitory clauses to distinguish your quotes from your explanations. 

I recommend the author to include more relevant literature on the ineffable, especially defining more clearly the negative language of mystical theology. What does it mean? Include references to Rudolf Otto and Abraham Joshua Heschel on the ineffable.

Also, the phrase "the Absolute Ineffable" sounds too wordy and it gets away from the main idea behind ineffability. Looking for precision in language of the Divine is an impossible task. But the author can make a valid argument in regards to the divine attributes and how affirmative this cataphatic mystical theology can be in order to communicate the divine mysteries.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

I would like to thank the Reviewer for their useful comments.

There are some errors of punctuation. Look inside the footnotes. Make sure to cite all sources in parentheses when quoting or paraphrasing. Have better transitory clauses to distinguish your quotes from your explanations. 

Thank you, I have tried to clean up the text. Some longer quotes also suffered when MDPI re-formatted the text.

I recommend the author to include more relevant literature on the ineffable, especially defining more clearly the negative language of mystical theology. What does it mean? Include references to Rudolf Otto and Abraham Joshua Heschel on the ineffable.

Thank you for the suggestions! It has actually been way too long since I last read Otto, I will need to dedicate some time with him to be able to confidently bring him into the conversation. Joshua Heschel is a completely new name to me.

Also, the phrase "the Absolute Ineffable" sounds too wordy and it gets away from the main idea behind ineffability. Looking for precision in language of the Divine is an impossible task. But the author can make a valid argument in regards to the divine attributes and how affirmative this cataphatic mystical theology can be in order to communicate the divine mysteries.

Interesting approach, duly noted! I will try to make better use of cataphatic theology.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review: Embracing the Unknowable: Paradigm of Ineffability 

In general

 

First of all, I like to congratulate the author(s) with this  manuscript. The paper is well written. It was a pleasure to read. The text is dense and deep; it has sufficient tension and clarity, a literal tendency and a gradual deepening by a thorough exploration of the topic. Most footnotes are appropriate. The title covers the content. There are some typos (missing articles). The text should be checked on this. Some quotations should be better marked (by “ “). Titles of paragraphs could be clearer when the – is replaced by a : (function of -?). The text is well substantiated with references and examples. The topic suits the journal. The analysis is challenging: writing about the ineffable. It looks like a contradiction in terminus. The topic is well introduced and analyzed by distinguishing three approaches to its meaning.  The proposal to look at it as a paradigm seems fruitful to me and a contribution to the debate. It is a well though over attempt to understand Ineffability (positively defined). However, I think that its elaboration in the last paragraph could be somewhat more expanded, while the diversion in between line 708-772 can be skipped. My conclusion is to accept the paper with a minor revision (see below).  

 

In particular:

 

 

Line 22-23: Citation? Reference?

 

Line 76. Typo: …attempt to…

Line 77-78: “In short, the first meaning of Being Ineffable is as a state of affair or state of being—the meaning and definition of “absolute”. Not clear. Please explain the last part of this sentence. What kind of state is the absolute?

Line 77-81. Question: Is there a state of affairs without concept attached to it? 

Line 87. Typo: …through the …..

Line 115: Type: … a multitude….

Line 143-151: The author is paying tribute to Thomas Kuhn. What is the defining example of ineffability here?

Line 163: please explain “conceptualizing”. Is there a lack of capability to conceptualize (as action/competence) or is there an object without any concept being attached to it?

Line 181: …this juncture… Please explain. What juncture?

Line 188-191: Question. Is this the negative/apophatic approach of the ineffable, i.e. saying what it is not? And, is the negative approach a way to avoid the paradox?

Line 271: “… or as some kind of a psychological or phenomenological “after or side effect” of a mystical experience.” Please explain. What is a psychological side effect? 

Line 273: illustrative example = pleonasm

Line 281-282: “… this and similar divisions are compatible with Being Ineffable.” Typo + What is meant here? The division might be a clear expression of the ineffable, in line with the paradox: the ineffable is captured in words. 

Line 288: Typo: … not be …

Line 303-308: Please mark this as citation of Dionysius.

Line 336: The word “NO” in the paragraph title does not seem to be functional. 

Line 337-345: Please mark this as a quotation (“. ..”)

Line 337-392: To what extend is mysticism an experience as such? Also line 411: Can mysticism maybe better be called a “realization” (i.e. a state of consciousness) than an experience?

Line 346: Katz is a neo-Kantian, practicing a synthesis between empiricism and rationalism. How can mysticism be understood from a Kantian point of view?

 Line 413: Eckhart the most famous? Consider Hildegard von Bingen. Better say “a famous” instead of “the most”

Line 431: Type. …aware instead of “vary”.

Footnote 11 and 12 do not seem to add much to the main text and can be skipped.

Line 643: …. is the…? Or is the sentence correct as it stands?

Line 645: Strictly speaking what follows is not a conclusion. The author summarizes the preceding text (which is good, given the difficult topic) and then (“In the end…”) seems to point out a particular heading for further reasoning. As the paragraph shows a literary ambition, I am sure the author can come up with a more appropriate title of this paragraph.  

Line 708-772. I wonder what is the function of this paragraph. For me, it is a distraction of the main topic. I would suggest to remove this paragraph from the article also with regard to the length of the paper and the difficult topic. Distractions should be avoided, despite literary quality. So, continue directly with 774 and end the paragraph titled “conclusion” with some remarks about the paradigm concept as a way to approach the topic of Ineffability.

Line 775. I appreciate the introduction of the paradigm in order to understand the ineffability very much. However, I miss the literal meaning of the concept as example. As Thomas Kuhn points out in his theory of knowledge/science examples of experiment or observation are followed and determine the theory based on them as well as the theory derived from them, a kind of standard example. Examples change in due course (paradigm shifts) and define the development of a science. So, in this case I wonder what the “standard” example of Being ineffable or ineffability is? God? 

Line 801: typo: … the paradigm of … I tend to speak of a or the paradigm. The author seems to omit these articles (see also in title). Purpose?

Line 807: “Most notably, the paradigm of ineffability sees ineffability as an affirmation instead of negation.” This looks a bit paradoxical with what has been said before: “..for the paradigm of ineffability, there is very little it can directly dictate, and it doesn’t provide the philosopher, theologian, scientist, nor a mystic with a set of methods to use, and even the 803 object it offers is not really there (line 801).” Please explain.  

Line 833: Typo: “…the paradigm of …” 

Line 839: “..the Mystic chose to continue…”. Not clear. Chose of choice?

Line 833: Please approach the Ineffable here along the lines of a paradigm in a concluding paragraph, i.e. standard example, derived ways of looking at it or talking about it (conceptualizing), anomalies and possible paradigm shifts.  

Lot of typos by omitting articles (a, the). Text should be checked on this carefully. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

I would like to thank the Reviewer for their very useful comments a thorough feedback. I have tried my best to incorporate all the comments.

 

Line 22-23: Citation? Reference?

The voice belongs to an imaginary Classical Theist, but I am pleased to discover that s/he spoke with a sense of authority!

 

Line 76. Typo: …attempt to…

fixed!

Line 77-78: “In short, the first meaning of Being Ineffable is as a state of affair or state of being—the meaning and definition of “absolute”. Not clear. Please explain the last part of this sentence. What kind of state is the absolute?

I believe I have been bit ahead of myself here, I have changed it to “absolutely ineffable” to conform better with what the first meaning of Being Ineffable tries to accomplish. Also added couple of lines to clarify my use of absolute/Absolute and how my whole article is an attempt to define and understand it.

Line 77-81. Question: Is there a state of affairs without concept attached to it? 

The impetus to consider absolute as a state of affair comes from the definition of absolute as a “totality” of something; of something that has no relations or dependencies to anything else outside of it. In the context of my article, this creates the first boundary condition (as definition) to Being Ineffable. In summary, state of affair without a concept attached to it has to be a state of affair unlike any other, just like mystical experience is an experience like no other. In the end, my article is an attempt to draw philosophical contours around a nonconceptual state of affair, an attempt that also acknowledges that it can never be complete.

Line 87. Typo: …through the …..

fixed!

Line 115: Type: … a multitude….

fixed!

Line 143-151: The author is paying tribute to Thomas Kuhn. What is the defining example of ineffability here?

I am not exactly sure what is being asked about here. I have found Kuhn’s theory of paradigms to be a very useful philosophical tool, especially his notion of commensurability and theory-ladenness that I find to particularly useful when it comes to ineffability and mysticism. The ineffable is incommensurable with the effable just as mystical experience is incommensurable with ordinary experience. Paradigms help enhance the philosophical gap between qualitative and quantitative differences, and absolute ineffability (Being Ineffable) is most definitely about qualitative change, and maybe even wider difference than something ontologically/epistemologically/existentially qualitative, but incommensurability as a epistemological difficulty is already satisfied by the qualitative difference required by even weaker forms of ineffability.

Line 163: please explain “conceptualizing”. Is there a lack of capability to conceptualize (as action/competence) or is there an object without any concept being attached to it?

I believe the answer would be both. To the degree that there is an “object” without any concept being attached to it (being absolutely ineffable), it would also “be” something that cannot be conceptualized by any mind.

Line 181: …this juncture… Please explain. What juncture?

I am referring to the inevitable appearance of the paradox of ineffability that arises from definition of ineffability. So, the juncture is the immediate aftermath of the definition. But I can see awkwardness in the way I present it, I will try to improve it!

Line 188-191: Question. Is this the negative/apophatic approach of the ineffable, i.e. saying what it is not? And, is the negative approach a way to avoid the paradox?

I believe it is about the silence that can descend after apophatic approach has been taken to its conclusion. And yes, the apophatic approach does offer an answer, especially when it’s taken all the way to “Not even Ineffable” (Basilides), but the philosophical price that such a manoeuvre requires, is, of course, immense. And I believe my article comes with a similarly heavy metaphysical, epistemological and existential price tag, but I am happy to pay it. (As I am sure Basilides was)

Line 271: “… or as some kind of a psychological or phenomenological “after or side effect” of a mystical experience.” Please explain. What is a psychological side effect? 

I believe I am referring to some more psychological/cognitive approaches to mystical experiences that I have encountered during my research. Such as sense of bliss, of awe, of some kind of certainty in regard to meaning—to call it a side effect does sound rather clumsy and lazy now that I read it. I have removed “psychological”.

Line 273: illustrative example = pleonasm

I am fond of the expression. (This is the hill I am ready to die on!)

Line 281-282: “… this and similar divisions are compatible with Being Ineffable.” Typo + What is meant here? The division might be a clear expression of the ineffable, in line with the paradox: the ineffable is captured in words.

This is an interesting point! The focus is on the destination rather than journey; the meaning and implications of the journey (divisions) would require me to go dangerously close to the Stace – Katz conversations. But division as an expression of the ineffable does sound like a perspective worth exploring in that context.

Line 288: Typo: … not be …

Fixed!

Line 303-308: Please mark this as citation of Dionysius.

The formatting from my original text into MDPI template had some unforeseen consequences, including these longer quotes being drowned inside the walls of text. In this case, the citation was there, but perhaps difficult to connect.

Line 336: The word “NO” in the paragraph title does not seem to be functional. 

It is about the very emphatic “NO” by Katz. I have seen that quote a hundred times and I feel that the “NO” jumping out of the famous Katz passage describes the spirit of the related debate all too well, in this case I also respond with a “YES”.

Line 337-345: Please mark this as a quotation (“. ..”)

As in some half a dozen cases, formatting by MDPI squashed the free-standing block of text into the main text.

Line 337-392: To what extend is mysticism an experience as such? Also line 411: Can mysticism maybe better be called a “realization” (i.e. a state of consciousness) than an experience?

Realization would probably be a better word. Problem with experience is that it brings to mind something that is experienced and someone that experiences, and even if this can be true with mysticism, it detracts from the part of the experience that makes it mystical. I believe someone does use “realization”; so far, I have stuck with using “experience” even if I don’t consider them to belong to the unique category and to call them an “experience” can be misleading. I have never actually thought about utilizing “realization” or some other alternative. There might be something about the scholarly approaches to mysticism that push the use of experience, to use something else feels like you are leaving something important behind, no matter how troublesome.

Line 346: Katz is a neo-Kantian, practicing a synthesis between empiricism and rationalism. How can mysticism be understood from a Kantian point of view?

I will invite Kuhn to help me answer: Such mysticism is commensurable with ordinary experiences, which is represented by constructivism, the experiences and their interpretations are themselves theory-ladenn and expressions of socio-cultural background and psychological makeup of the mystic. It can be understood from a Kantian point of view, but that understanding is incommensurable with my understanding.

 Line 413: Eckhart the most famous? Consider Hildegard von Bingen. Better say “a famous” instead of “the most”

Fixed, or well… adjusted.

Line 431: Type. …aware instead of “vary”.

Fixed!

Footnote 11 and 12 do not seem to add much to the main text and can be skipped.

Agreed (with a heavy heart), fixed!

Line 643: …. is the…? Or is the sentence correct as it stands?

I believe it is correct.

Line 645: Strictly speaking what follows is not a conclusion. The author summarizes the preceding text (which is good, given the difficult topic) and then (“In the end…”) seems to point out a particular heading for further reasoning. As the paragraph shows a literary ambition, I am sure the author can come up with a more appropriate title of this paragraph.  

The author tried his best, but only managed to tone down the title to “Concluding Remarks”.

Line 708-772. I wonder what is the function of this paragraph. For me, it is a distraction of the main topic. I would suggest to remove this paragraph from the article also with regard to the length of the paper and the difficult topic. Distractions should be avoided, despite literary quality. So, continue directly with 774 and end the paragraph titled “conclusion” with some remarks about the paradigm concept as a way to approach the topic of Ineffability.

The paragraph was reduced to half and attempt was made to combine it with the concluding remarks.

Line 775. I appreciate the introduction of the paradigm in order to understand the ineffability very much. However, I miss the literal meaning of the concept as example. As Thomas Kuhn points out in his theory of knowledge/science examples of experiment or observation are followed and determine the theory based on them as well as the theory derived from them, a kind of standard example. Examples change in due course (paradigm shifts) and define the development of a science. So, in this case I wonder what the “standard” example of Being ineffable or ineffability is? God? 

I have tried to use Kuhn in a very selective and generic manner, trying to keep some distance from how paradigm is understood in relation to nature and progress of scientific knowledge. I simply find commensurability and theory-ladenness to be very powerful tools and am afraid to make use of them without mentioning Kuhn. This is one reason why I make amends both in the beginning and in the end, that the failure of the paradigm building project is not a problem, for the “ineffability view” following after the failure is no less useful. But I see the attempt itself as necessary, and I don’t exactly admit failure, simply accept it if that is the case. If there is a “standard” example, it does not itself change, the shifts/revolutions can only happen outside of it as what we observe/examine/try to understand form different wholes in relation to the Absolute/Being Ineffable

The question was difficult, and I might have misunderstood.

Line 801: typo: … the paradigm of … I tend to speak of a or the paradigm. The author seems to omit these articles (see also in title). Purpose?

Fixed!

Line 807: “Most notably, the paradigm of ineffability sees ineffability as an affirmation instead of negation.” This looks a bit paradoxical with what has been said before: “..for the paradigm of ineffability, there is very little it can directly dictate, and it doesn’t provide the philosopher, theologian, scientist, nor a mystic with a set of methods to use, and even the 803 object it offers is not really there (line 801).” Please explain.  

This is both a pleasant and difficult question to answer. In this part I am contrasting the paradigm of ineffability with “ordinary” paradigms, and how the work it can perform is not on bar with the paradigmatic standards; paradoxically-but-fittingly, the paradigm of ineffability is incommensurable with ordinary paradigms, and it comes with these limitations. I will try to emphasize this point and bring more clarity to this whole part.

 

Line 833: Typo: “…the paradigm of …” 

Fixed!

Line 839: “..the Mystic chose to continue…”. Not clear. Chose of choice?

Role of the Mystic re-assigned!

Line 833: Please approach the Ineffable here along the lines of a paradigm in a concluding paragraph, i.e. standard example, derived ways of looking at it or talking about it (conceptualizing), anomalies and possible paradigm shifts.  

Author was not exactly sure what was requested, but the last two paragraphs were (hopefully) improved.

 

Once again, thank you for your feedback. It was greatly appreciated!

Reviewer 3 Report

THis paper needs much work to bring it up to being publishable. You have put a lot of work into it and it seems to be well worth the effort to fix it up.I really think it is worth fixing up. Here are some of the problems I see in it:

1. The first 4 pages should be shortened to no more than 2 pages. There is much repetition, and many autobiographical asides that detract from the flow of the presentation. Much too much is said about what you are going to do. Just go and do it without so much fuss. You want to keep the readers' attention and not lose them in the first few pages. 

2. Indeed, throughout there are many personal asides that are at times repetitions of earlier ones or not needed for the argument and are disruptive of the flow. The paper should be cut down by a number of pages, by also removing some of the long footnotes that do not add. Remember, the readers of this published article will  have some prior knowledge of the topic and refernces to Katz and Stace and some others should be shortened.

3. The argument was not clear to this reader. It needs much work. For example, the term "absolute" is nowhere defined but cannot be assumed to be univocal ot even coherent. The three part division was not clear - concerning the first in  relation to the third. There was something amorphis about the entire argument. It must be tightened and the terms you adopt being given more clarity.  I am not able to go over with you all the points that need work in this way. But I am convinced that if you do that it would be a fine paper.

4. An example of fixing: In line 386 you say that negative theology turns out to be a positive thing. However, that positive thing is not about God but about language of God. This is not a problem. 

5. Your summary of your argument for ineffability on page 14 : As far as I could see this argument stands alone from the prior details of the paper. You can go directly from your comments about the question "Why something rather than nothing"  to your conclusion. Now I admit, I might be missing something in your argument, but to that I would say that you should rewrite the paper in a clearer way so that a reader such as myself would not miss the  idea. 

I write this with the hope that I have helped you somewhat to write this paper in a more informative way. 

Author Response

Response to reviewer 3

I would like to thank the Reviewer for their useful comments a thorough feedback.

THis paper needs much work to bring it up to being publishable. You have put a lot of work into it and it seems to be well worth the effort to fix it up.I really think it is worth fixing up. Here are some of the problems I see in it:

1. The first 4 pages should be shortened to no more than 2 pages. There is much repetition, and many autobiographical asides that detract from the flow of the presentation. Much too much is said about what you are going to do. Just go and do it without so much fuss. You want to keep the readers' attention and not lose them in the first few pages. 

I understand and agree with the point! I have tried to remove as much fuss as possible and managed to remove one page worth. And bit more disappeared together with the notes. The introduction, which is probably part of the fuss, remains as it is needed by the conclusion (which itself has less fuss).

2. Indeed, throughout there are many personal asides that are at times repetitions of earlier ones or not needed for the argument and are disruptive of the flow. The paper should be cut down by a number of pages, by also removing some of the long footnotes that do not add. Remember, the readers of this published article will  have some prior knowledge of the topic and refernces to Katz and Stace and some others should be shortened.

Around 2000 words have been removed.

3. The argument was not clear to this reader. It needs much work. For example, the term "absolute" is nowhere defined but cannot be assumed to be univocal ot even coherent. The three part division was not clear - concerning the first in  relation to the third. There was something amorphis about the entire argument. It must be tightened and the terms you adopt being given more clarity.  I am not able to go over with you all the points that need work in this way. But I am convinced that if you do that it would be a fine paper.

I consider absolute as a “totality” of something; of something that has no relations or dependencies to anything else outside of it. And the definition of Absolute, being the third meaning of Being Ineffable, is being defined throughout the article. I have tried to clarify this in the text.

4. An example of fixing: In line 386 you say that negative theology turns out to be a positive thing. However, that positive thing is not about God but about language of God. This is not a problem. 

I could not find anything about negative theology on that line, but I assume this was said in relation to the third meaning of Being Ineffable (The Ineffable/Absolute/God) and how both negations and affirmations fail (thus, for example, doing the philosophical work of safeguarding transcendence). I will try to further clarify this point in the article!

5. Your summary of your argument for ineffability on page 14 : As far as I could see this argument stands alone from the prior details of the paper. You can go directly from your comments about the question "Why something rather than nothing"  to your conclusion. Now I admit, I might be missing something in your argument, but to that I would say that you should rewrite the paper in a clearer way so that a reader such as myself would not miss the  idea. 

I agree, as you mentioned on point 3, the argument can be/appear as amorphous. This has been a continuous struggle as I have tried to form a coherent whole; so much needs to be said and so much of what needs to be said comes with philosophical price tag as well as far reaching commitments. I have tried my best to improve the clarity and flow of the text.  

I write this with the hope that I have helped you somewhat to write this paper in a more informative way. 

Thank you, greatly appreciated!

As a final note, I found your comments very compelling and challenging, and I am aware that I might not have been able to fully address the suggestions. But they will definitely help me improve my writing and approach to the topic of mysticism and ineffability in the future.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The rewriting is a good improvement and I advise the submission be accepted for publication.