Would it be fair to say God is not entirely unknowable, but he is unknowable entirely?
It seems to me that this find it most elaborate and systematic working out and probably the height and thus end of the engagement of Christian thought with (neo)Platonic thought in St. Gregory of Palamas.
Where else are you going to go or have to "fine tune"?
I also think such an understanding can seen in Scripture or Liturgy. I think taking specific theological arguments held in specific historical and theological contexts and reading them outside that context ain't very profitable.
EOs seem to really clasp onto this "mysticism" or at least folks here or folks I see who talk theologically. They love the ineffable God stuff so much they forget they are constantly naming
him. (I use a ribald pun here usually, use your imagination).
Now add every title and adjective that is not "apophatic" we use.
We approach the Living God with the audacity to call Him: Father, Daddy, Papa, however you like to gloss that.
St. Gregory of Palamas is awesome.
But we get all that "understanding" in the Liturgy and the Scriptures.
Oh yeah, we all also make of images of God.
Really, the bulk of Orthodoxy is radically Incarnational. It is good to remember the radical Holiness of God (here meaning unapproachability in its variety of contexts). Orthodoxy does a fine job of that.
I think perhaps in a place, America, where Jesus is often your BBF, the over emphasis on the Holiness of God (again in terms of unapproachability) is understandable, but I believe lamentable.
From the Lord's Prayer, to the Creed, the Jesus Prayer, we name God, approach God in a personal manner. We as persons with unique namable and (humanly) inexhaustible characteristics attempting to find Communion with God, Persons with unique namable and (humanly) inexhaustible characteristics, in perfect Communion with One Another.