In order to express in the best possible way the reality inherent in God of a personal, or rather, the reality of a personal God, and this reality is not only an economic mode of manifestation of the impersonal Monad in Itself, but the primary and absolute presence of God the Trinity in His transcendence, the Greek fathers to designate the Divine Persons preferred the term ὑπóστασις to the term πρóσωπον. … The hypostasis is that which is the ousia, all the properties, or all the negations, that can be formulated in relation to the "super-essence" are applicable to it, and yet it remains irreducible to the ousia. This irreducibility can neither be grasped nor expressed outside the relation of the three Hypostases, which, properly speaking, are not three, but "Three-Unity." When we say "three Hypostases", we already fall into an unacceptable abstraction: even if we wanted to generalize and find a definition of the “Divine Hypostasis”, it would be necessary to say that the only generalizing definition of the three Hypostases is the impossibility of any general definition of them. They are similar in that they are dissimilar, or else, transcending the relative and irrelevant idea of similarity here, we should say, that their absolute distinguishability also presupposes their absolute identity, outside of which it is inconceivable to speak of a hypostatic Tri-Unity. How "Three" here is not a quantitative number, but a sign of the infinite transcendence of the dyad of oppositions by the triad of pure distinctions (a triad equivalent to a monad), so a hypostasis, as such and not reducible to ousia, not a formulated concept, but a sign that introduces us into the sphere of the non-generalized and marks the radical personality of the God of the Christian Revelation.