The Three Modes of Discourse

The three modes of discourse listed in an ascending

hierarchic order are the purgative (apophatic), the illuminative
(kataphatic), and the unitive (hyperphatic). These three stages
are also called, the “incipient, proficient, and perfect” [Knowles,
25]. I will now briefly define their meaning. The apophatic level
of discourse is the negative level, and is as known as the level of
‘unsaying.’ At this level one recognizes that the divine is really
other, and thus it is not like our world. It requires the practice of
asceticism (aphairesis), the taking away or setting aside of the
distractions of this world. As I understand it, this ascetic denial is
to be done through all the stages of the spiritual life, but it is
associated with this level in particular. The second level is the
kataphatic level. This level is positive in that it allows one to make
positive statements about the One. It is called illuminative
because of the light after the darkness of purgation. Finally one
reaches the hyperphatic level. This level unites the previous two
levels of discourse in a unified mode. It leads to a union or
communion with the One. These three modes of discourse must
not be seen as simply forms of speech; instead, they must be seen
as active, and as involving the whole being of the person going
through the process.
The NeoPlatonic triad is subordinationist and necessitarian
in nature. There is a diffusion of power from the One, which is
beyond being, as it necessarily emanates the Nous, and more
power is lost when the Nous necessarily emanates the World Soul.
Thus the second hypostasis is subordinate to the first, and the
third hypostasis is subordinate to the second and the first.
Though Christianity recognizes a certain hierarchization within
creation, it does not recognize any in the Trinity of God. The
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal with each other
and co-equal, and a further distinction between the two systems
involves the fact that God is being, and along with this the idea
that the life of the Trinity is centered in Love, not in necessity.
Thus the Son unlike the Nous is not generated from necessity.
The persons (hypostases) of the Trinity are essentially one and are
distinct only through personal relation. There are four relations
in the Godhead: paternity, filiation, active spiration, and passive
spiration. Because active spiration is shared by the Father and the
Son it is not a distinct personal relation, so it is not a person.
Passive spiration is a distinct personal relation in that it
distinguishes the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. A
certain amount of subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to
the Father is acceptable when speaking of the economic Trinity
(i.e., the Trinity as revealed in Sacred History), but absolutely no
subordination can be spoken of when discussing the immanent
Trinity (i.e., the inner essential life of the Godhead).

The World as Emanation

NeoPlatonism views the world as an emanation from the

One, through the Nous and the World Soul in an eternal cycle;
while Christianity sees the world as a created and contingent
reality. The world is a necessary consequence of the emanations
from the One in the NeoPlatonic system; while within the
Christian system it is seen as created by God out of the
super-abundance of His Love (Agape). Augustine would accept
the idea of a certain amount of transitive power issuing out of
created beings, but God is the efficient cause of creation and this
causality is not transferable. The NeoPlatonic system makes the
One remote and completely transcendent; while the Christian
system sees God as transcendent, yet also as immanent in that He
sustains all things in being, as St. Paul said, “In Him we live and
move and have our being” [Acts 17:28]. Thus unlike
NeoPlatonism, Christianity sees God as being involved in his
creation, a creation that He brought into being out of Love, and
not from necessity.

Tolma

The word ‘tolma’ has connotations of pride, self-assurance,

self-recognition and courage, and thus it can be understood in a
positive light, but it also can be viewed in a negative sense as a
type of rebellion or revolt, and a type of independence in which a
subject does not recognize that it is dependent on another for its
existence. When taken in this sense it has an overweening
courage, and it suffers from a type of self-aggrandizement. This is
similar to what Narcissus experienced when he saw his reflection
in the pool of water, and it is in this sense that the Nous becomes
enamored with itself.
The first hypostasis is the One and it is understood to be
beyond being, and as a consequence of this it is pre-conscious;
while the Nous, the second hypostasis which is necessarily
generated from the One, is the beginning of being and of
consciousness. The third hypostasis is the World Soul and it
necessarily emanates from the Nous, and then from it comes the
world. The world is the level of becoming. So for Plotinus, being
and knowledge arise with the emanation of the Nous from the
One; while becoming is centered in the world, which properly
speaking does not have being, but only has becoming. The next
point concerns duality, and for Plotinus it is at the level of the
Nous that duality (the dyad) appears. There are two aspects to
this duality; the first is the subject-object duality, and the second
is the subject-predicate duality. The Nous sees itself as subject,
but looks back at the One as object, as something other than itself.
Thus the Nous is separated from the One and is distinct from the
it, yet it now contemplates the One.
Thought is necessarily propositional. To understand
anything you need a subject-predicate relation. All our complete
thoughts involve this duality. In order to understand something
we must take it apart, we must divide it. As an example, take the
statement, “I am a human being”; this statement is true, but in
order to convey this I had to divide myself and express this truth
through a subject-predicate relation. So, rational thought
requires multiplicity. The One does not experience this duality
because it is beyond understanding and is thus pre-rational and
non-propositional. I personally see a problem with this in that
man, like the Nous, in some sense must contemplate the One, but
since the One is beyond being it follows that it is completely
unknowable, since to attempt through reason to know it, would
logically require dividing the undividable. But perhaps this
difficulty exists only in my mind, and I simply may be unable to
grasp the full meaning which Plotinus intends to establish
through his philosophical system concerning the nature of the
One.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

David Knowles. The Evolution of Medieval Thought. (London:

Longman Group Limited, 1988).

The Bible: Revised Standard Version.