I found an interesting connection between this week's lesson on apophasis and last week's lesson on multiplism.  Apophatic discourse functions under the premise that a transcendental debate fluctuates between affirming and negating, defining and undefining, saying and "unsaying." Michael A. Sells states in his book, Mystical Languages of Unsaying, that “[r]eal contradictions occur when language engages the ineffable transcendent, but these contradictions are not illogical.” Sells' theory, as it is presented here, is intended to confuse the reader; the very idea that contradictions are not illogical is a foreign concept to conventional wisdom. Sells is determined to challenge that conventional wisdom and prove that contradictions are not inherently incompatible.

It seems to me, then, that principles of multiplism, as explained by Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad, could come in handy while trying to reconcile illogical contradictions. Multiplism basically aims to settle people's conflicting beliefs by encouraging the adoption of an understanding that two completely contradictory schemas or world-views can exist within the same reality. In light of this, the idea of apophasis as a means to describe God seems a lot more manageable and less confusing.  God can be defined as everything and nothing simultaneously, and that is simply OK, because the fundamental parallel logic behind each theory (X is Y; RAB = Sa + Sb (or something like that), etc.) endorse a worldview in which contradictions are embraced and accepted as true.  It appears that both theories strive for the same thing and work under similar principles, even though their exact methods, goals, and purposes differ.