We would not, for instance, call God “essence” but rather “superessential,” not call Him “wise” but rather “beyond wise,” not “loving” but “more than loving” (462a–b, 521d). What Eriugena likes about this is that it combines the virtues of positive and negative theology. The surface grammar of a statement like “God is super-good” is positive. It seems to offer a description of God, assigning to Him the attribute of super-goodness, whatever that might mean. But as soon as we start to think about what that would in fact mean, we see that the force of the prefix “super-” is negative.
