Yep. I do know that, dear brother in Christ.
I gather you want me to flesh out an explanation of what I "know" here. (FWIW)
Okay, here goes: First of all, there is no way to pull God down to human categories of knowledge and experience without deforming the very idea of God Himself. Thus any such attempt boils down to falsifying Who God Is.
Another way to put it: the very attempt at "anthropomorphizing" God boils down to the will of a Man seeking to make (his own) human nature and experience the "measure" of God (and Nature itself, as it turns out).
Suffice it to say, God is not exhaustively "measurable" in such [human] terms. The Image cannot so does not dictate terms to its direct Source. The Image it limited to its status as the reflection of its direct Source; it can never attain to the status of Source itself.
At least this is so if the Image seeks after the Truth of its own "reflected" existence during its mortal lifetime.
Again, I refer to the philosopher Henri Bergson, who first noted the psychic condition of "open" vs. "closed" soul. Human free will determines in which mode a man chooses or elects to participate with the Great Hierarchy of Being — God–Man–World–Society — of which each and every human mortal is born part and participant.
Plato recognized One God "Beyond" the cosmos. He apperceived that this God projects divine Nous — intelligence, reason, mind — into the world of His creation. But Plato could not "name" this god.
For a name implies a personality. To Plato, there was nothing "personal" about his God Beyond. Though I'm sure he recognized that for human beings, there can be no sense of "mind" absent a person whose mind it is.
This conundrum was not resolved until the Incarnation of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, roughly some 400 years after the death of Socrates.
Thus I continue to maintain that the Coming of Christ was not only the fulfillment of the Patriarchs and the Prophets of the Old Testament, but the very explanation of St. Paul's epiphany/conversion on the Road to Damascus.
That is, not only the Torah was fulfilled by the incarnation of Jesus Christ, Messiah; but also classical philosophy was fulfilled....
Well, FWIW.
Thank you, dear brother, for writing!
Your thoughts are always welcome (and illuminating), boop. Thank you for your willingness to give of yourself so much.
What I want, whether you choose at any particular moment to be fulsome or sparing, is to be understood that I do not ascribe to myself the ability to characterize the Judeo-Christian God in anything approaching human terms. As you put it, “seeking to make human nature and experience the “measure” of God.” Nor do I think it within the capacity of anyone.
The whole of our being should be concerned with knowing and obeying the will of God, imperfect though our concern and ability may be. IMHO.
Thank you for your time and thoughts.
The Jewish mystics use the name Ayn Sof to describe God the Creator. Literally it means "no thing" but the point is what you have beautifully explained in your essay. Namely, that any word a mortal could use to describe God limits Who He IS to the meaning of the word in the mind of the one who used it.