The following quote touches on why I am uncomfortable with the abstracted God of much medieval mysticism, despite the fact I consider mysef a mystic. It is because their negative (apophatic) theology becomes disengaged from the gospel, whereas I am seeking a negative theology that is grounded in the gospel. Anyway, see if this speaks to you in any way:
The Icon: The Negation Christologically Assumed and Transfigured
The ultimate reason for the difference between the two kinds of negative theology rests therefore in Christology. The critical question is whether negative theology itself is christologically configured or whether it is conceptually abstracted from Christology. In other words, either Christology itself creates a difference in the negative dynamic of theologia so that the latter remains an intrinsic moment of Christology, or negative theology remains purely bound to the Creator/creature difference but internally undifferentiated in a way that leads the apophatic eventually to erase the cataphatic.
The Christological difference in this regard is the following: the negation of negative theology is not a new affirmation that in an ascending move sublates the prior affirmation and its negation. Rather, the negation of negative theology occurs in the form of its ongoing interruption through the continuous granting of the economy’s est, the incarnation of the Word.
Reinhard Hutter – Bound to be Free