Ignorance, Understanding, and Carlos Barth

The utter dismality apparent in the current state of so-called "biblio-blogging" is as degenerate and disastrous as wealthy wo/men with gambling problems. The analogous import of the aforementioned sentencinal structure is this: there exists an abundance out of which substance the ignorant can continue to support their own habit. This became ever-evident on this very day from the post of Nick Norelli who enunciated his utter ignorance and lack of understanding. I quote him in part:

I’d advise against [reading Barth's illustrious Die Kirchliche Dogmatik] on this basis: Everyone I have read (either in books or on blogs) who has read through CD has ended up either more confused or more confusing for doing so. That’s why I have purposed to only read through CD I/1 and find out if Barth can really be labeled a modalist or not.

The sheer arrogance exhibited in this thought that doing theology is supposed to result in coherent thought or understanding is tantamount to heresy! For it denies the true substance of theo-contemplation which is an agnosticising of the divine so that we recognize our utter inability to be conceived as anything other than that which cannot conceive of the inconceivable conception of YHVH.

Furthermore, I find his question concerning Barth's alleged 'modalism' (a term might I add that has little force in modern speculative theology for we cannot conceive of any actual difference in the theo-team) to be totally misplaced. The question is not whether or not the great Carlos Barth was a 'modalist', but rather the question is was his modalism speculatively justifiable in quantifiable terms of the word association that we call communicative language. The answer is a resounding yes for any and everything which challenged the status quo of comfortable theology and traditional 'exegesis' must be validly accepted as acceptably valid.