On affirmation, denial, unknowing and hymning
Here is a question. If, as Perl has it, the foundational basis of Neoplatonism (pagan or Christian) is "to be is to be intelligible", how do we justify this first move? It already has Neoplatonic metaphysics built into it, i.e., it assumes the reality of the forms. Of course, I have no idea whether there are Platonic forms or not.
That said, what unfolds from this initial statement is a beauty to behold. It also looks to have surprising commonalities with other forms of Religion/Spirituality/Philosophy that *don't* make this initial assumption or even have anything similar to Platonic forms in their basic metaphysics (or do they?).
In The Lost Way to the Good you make the case for the similarities between Dionysian Christian Neoplatonism and Pure Land Buddhism. Other comparisons could and have been made. I know this is probably a far more complex topic than we can get into here. But it nags at me. This is, of course, a form of the postmodern question of foundations. Or more directly: is Neoplatonism, etc., little more than "word magic"? One that conjures up an entire metaphysic out of a simple, but far from neutral assumption about reality.