Alright. Due to my origin being "stubbornness,"(get the reference?) I'm not going to give up just yet regarding the root being different from [ ].
If you don't really care about this, you can freely ignore it. But if you do care, please read everything, especially about how Apophatic Theology truly works
I had a talk with my former grade 12 religion teacher for over 2hrs regarding this topic. I'm friends with his son who lives close to me so I was able to see him(yes, I'm that desperate). He studied philosophy and religion in University. He was very surprised that someone like me who hated his religion and philosophy classes, decided to ask him something as complex as Apophatic theology just because of an anime or LN that I love.
I showed him the link to the High 1A thread regarding apophatic theology and how the root was different from [] and he read through everything and I also showed him most of the comments especially
Crimson's,
Theoretical and
Paul Frank's. I then asked him that based on everything he's seen so far from the post and comments on both sides, was the root still the same as [] and was the root still apophatic in nature?
Before he began giving his opinion, he already told me he has no knowledge on this Nasuverse series which is already obvious but he was really amazed that the author of Nasuverse was very talented based on his perfect descriptions and explanation on Apophatic Theology and how he was able to implement it perfectly into his story. He even stated he has never seen any fictional setting that used apophatic theology into their story since this was a very complex study that either religion scholars or philosophical theologists mostly use. And he claimed that the fact that Nasu knew perfectly what Apophatic Theology was, then the implementation of it in his story had to be very good because not everybody that studied philosophy also studied apophatic theology. so for him to know this, then he must objectively understand how it works. The topic itself is almost a sub-branch of philosophy/religion mixed together. Anyways, his complete explanation on this topic is written below;
Firstly, he claimed that in order to understand Apophatic Theology, you need to understand Cataphatic Theology. Since Apophatic Theology is speaking God in negation(that is by saying nothing at all), Cataphatic Theology is the opposite. It speaks of God in what we know about him. He then stated that whatever is said cataphatically in order to understand what God is apophatically always exists but it's not what God is. He then gave me an example of what he meant. He said God is stated to be "omnipotent and all-powerful," and while these terms truly exist, it's not what God is. He is beyond that. In order words, he's saying that "omnipotence" and "all-powerful" are concepts, notions that actually exist, but they would never be enough to describe God. Does that sound familiar? Yes. [] is exactly like that. [] is seen as Swirl of The Root but it's not []. Swirl of The Root exists differently as an ontological physical notion but it's not []. I then asked him to fully explain this scan to me and tell me if there was supposed to be any difference between [] and the root. He wrote everything on a sheet of paper but due to handwriting, I would translate them down. It's written in his POV;
My Religion professor’s View on this subject below
My professor's continuation;
He then gave me this link to get better details on Apophatic Theology and why anything used to describe God might exist, but would never truly be God
https://philarchive.org/archive/SCOWIA-6