Apophasis, cataphasis, and the distinctions between unsignifiables

Within disparate cultural discourses, certain forms of absolute being are said to be so far beyond the limits of normal human experience that language simply cannot describe them. Within Western intellectual traditions, this notion of something that is placed beyond the possible reach of signs is called apophatic , as opposed to the cataphatic concepts that can be adequately known through language. The theory of apophasis proposes that certain kinds of objects (such as an infinitely holy deity) cannot be signified because by nature they exceed any possibility of capture by the sign. In some cases, failures of signification become key to the concept or object identified. Given the prevalence of such asserted unsignifiable objects across cultures, a logical question arises: if all such objects lie beyond signification, how can we know that they are not the same object? In fact, when one sets multiple unsignifiers in comparison, intellectual history does make clear that they can still be distinguished. Therefore, the apophatic denial of a sign such as “God” or “Dao” – or of aesthetic experience from a poet such as Wang Wei – does not actually end signification; it creates a new kind of heavily context-dependent sign.