'Countability' is too precise a term for the meaning or context. The article as I read it makes the core point I wanted to express: a derisive reference to scho

'Countability' is too precise a term for the meaning or context. The article as I read it makes the core point I wanted to express: a derisive reference to scholarship of the time period as obcessed with "angels on pinheads" is probably ungenerous. If you know of JMG one statement of his was roughly this: Every school-child (of that time period) used to know that an 'eternal being' was outside of time, not a being [within time] that would "live forever." That is, 'eternal' apparently had a precise sense [then] which most are now ignorant of. Again, I could be wrong. It is hard for me to look down on curiousity about "what could be outside of time" when it remains a popular science question -- i.e., where did the big bang happen?, etc