Answer

I am not familiar with his approach. In general, I do not think there is room for different approaches here, because there is only one possible approach in this topic. The various surveyors who count up the different approaches in every topic are making a fundamental mistake here. Clearly there is no point in surveying approaches that say nothing, or are no different from the others, or are simply not true.
Now, in a case where there is only one possibility, as in our case here (that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not know in advance things that depend on free choice, except in situations where He takes away the choice), every approach falls into one of three categories: either it is identical to that one, or it says nothing at all (quite a few approaches are just empty verbal acrobatics), or it is wrong and self-contradictory.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
A. So if I understand the Rabbi’s position correctly, he holds that there is no knowledge where genuine choice is possible?
B. And what about the claim that I do not know what knowledge is, because our intellect is limited, and therefore there is no contradiction at all?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
A. Indeed.
B. There is no point talking about something you do not know. Lack of knowledge does not solve contradictions.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Regarding question B, what do you mean when you say there is no point talking about something you do not know? If you could expand on the explanation a bit, because most of Judaism rests on this reasoning.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I do not know of any Judaism that rests on this reasoning, especially since it is not really reasoning at all. I do not understand what there is to explain here. You write that you do not understand something, and on this reasoning—that one should not discuss what one does not understand—most of Judaism rests?
If you do not know what knowledge is, then do not say anything about His knowledge. Neither that He knows nor that He does not know. You are talking about things you know nothing about, so what is the point of talking? Does not knowing something somehow solve a contradiction?
If He knows in advance—then there is a contradiction. If He does not know—then there is no contradiction. And if you do not know what knowledge is, then do not talk about it at all: neither say that He knows nor that He does not. And then of course there is no contradiction.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
A. I know that He knows because the Torah and the Mishnah explicitly said, “Everything is foreseen,” but I do not know exactly what kind of foreseeing this is, and I know there is also free choice, as it says, “yet permission is granted.”
B. According to your approach, that He does not know, it is well known that His knowledge is His essence, so if He does not know then there is a lack in His essence.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
A. We are repeating ourselves. If you know, no matter from where, then fine. But if you do not know what His knowledge means, then what are you learning from the Mishnah? You do not understand it, so what is there to discuss? There is a Mishnah that you do not understand, and from it you draw conclusions, and then a contradiction arises for you. Now you “solve” the contradiction by saying that we do not understand. Do you hear how that sounds?
By the way, in my opinion that is also not what the Mishnah says there. In my view, the plain meaning is that everything is foreseen (= seen by Him) except for that regarding which permission is granted (our actions that stem from free choice).
 
B. You “know” lots of things from sources unknown to me, and on their basis you raise difficulties. I do not know what it means that His knowledge is His essence, and I also do not know that His knowledge is His essence. Beyond all that, even if that has some meaning, still, if He does not know something, that is not a lack in His essence. His essence is the set of things that can be known and that He knows. Other items of knowledge simply do not exist at all, so there is no deficiency whatsoever in His essence. But all this is unnecessary pilpul about vague concepts rooted in speculative thinking. I do not see any point in dealing with it.