Transcendence through negation?

In this week's post, I would like to address the concept of apophasis. Apophasis, as I understand it, is a form of negation. As discussed in Sells' excerpt, Mystical Languages of Unsaying, apophasis can specifically refer to a situation in which one states that a certain deity is "beyond names." Yet, by stating that this object/deity is beyond names, one is in essence naming that object/deity.

I would be lying if I said that I completely understood this concept - yet, I do find it extremely interesting. As we discussed in class, apophatic discourse creates a possibility of "transcendence." Such transcendence can occur by overcoming boundaries between the "self and other," among other pairings.

Some methods of apophatic discourse can focus on finding transcendent elements in mundane things, such as when one says "every kind act is an act of Christ." This, to me, seems an interesting method of "un-naming" something. By referring to multiple acts instead of a figure, one avoids giving a name to a specific diety and/or figure. One "un-names" the figure and attaches the essence that makes the figure so special (I couldn't think of a good word to put there) to everyday acts.

One of the other methods of "un-naming," however, seemed fairly ineffective to me. This method, as I understand, involves an un-ending series of actually un-naming something. For example: X is not...X is not... X is not... (and so on). To actually particpate in such an unending series of negations seems pointless to me - therefore, the purpose of these negations must be in the idea of the unending negation itself? I suppose, by this, I mean that one realizes that verbally un-naming something is ineffective and ultimately counterproductive. Thus, one realizes that actually "un-naming" something is a much deeper concept than the verbal act of "un-saying."

Like I said, I am rather fuzzy on this concept. I hope my line of reasoning made sense! Thoughts?

- Anne Reynolds