What does raise the interest of knowledge? The ineffable reality or the unfelt one?
The ineffable reality is still possessed by those who intent to point to it. Not only because of the paradoxical condition that makes us to speak even about the nonbeing since we call it nonbeing.
The range of things possessed is not like a yard where there are included items, but as a road on which we may move along the things possessed, participating in their existence, pushing them further or moving along them. Of such nature is the ineffable reality, which opens the gate of speaking about the ways we follow to it, or back from it.
Those matters about which we have not a final answer are continually attended because they are in our possession as means of permitting our movement around them.
An ineffable reality admits the use of language around it and, for this reason, it is a reality that encourages the movement around it. It seems that the interest of knowledge is focused on the items that admit such movement and possession, but not the ineffable reality.
Such items are slightly determined. Hence the value of movement is not derived from them, but from one’s possibility of moving around them. The uncovered and ineffable matter just provides gravity of such enterprises, being far from keeping the interest of knowledge on its behalf.
On the contrary, the unfelt focuses the attention on it. The desirable object able to be felt circumscribes all the movement of one who desires it.
By ‘the unfelt’, it should be meant all the realities that are able to be felt but it is impossible to grasp them. For instance, we may count as unfelt realities the object or person as they appear to someone in memory or in dreams.
The interest of knowledge is kept by such unfelt realities, but in the way of revealing our lack of knowing them. The need of knowing them shows our knowledge or life being in need.
The movement caused by an unfelt object is necessary for dealing with a lack of knowledge. It is not a movement that adds itself to the object as different from it, permitting us to purchase items about which we can discuss, as it occurs in the case of ineffable objects.
It is a lack of knowledge that always persists, because it is generated by the unfelt object. Such lack of knowledge is managed by searching for what is known to us. But we do not search for it as if we could master the object, but as gathering those parts of reality presenting a connection with the unfelt object.
Thus we can explain why Plato provides incomplete logoi for approaching Forms that are unfelt rather than ineffable. Platonic myths about a preexistent soul that experienced the knowledge of Forms should be taken as ways of designating the Forms as unfelt objects.