Let the Glory of HAQQ refer to HAQQ's untrammeled power. Does this power make HAQQ good or evil? It would appear that it can't properly be called either - following pseudo-Dionysus we can say that HAQQ is good, but also not good - yet the negation involved here signifies that God is simply good beyond comprehension. His goodness is not what we conceive of as good, because it is even better than that. HAQQ is perhaps unbearably good, too good. In the Kabbalah tradition, this truth is represented by a flame flickering in the darkness while consuming its wick. From the outside perspective, the flame illuminates and provides warmth. But the same flame, on the "inside", or simply from a closer proximity, burns, causes pain, destroys. This is the reason we are to fear HAQQ and, astonished, be humbled by its power: in small doses, from the right distance, it bestows life. But it is equally able and willing to destroy.
But does that mean that God is a blind force, like a whirlwind? Not at all, I think. I am stuck with the pronoun "it" because "he" and "she" don't do it for me. But "it" is misleading - it suggests that God is in the third person somehow. But we're talking about the very Real that gives rise to all of 'third person' reality - not that reality itself. Of course we don't want to anthropomorphize HAQQ either - but perhaps we can imagine its personhood in the same pseudo-Dionysian way we are imagining his Glory: personhood, but not personhood - such that God transcends all personhood. He's more than a person - too much of a person, even.
Further, it seems that God is able to "express" and will, in some sense that is partially beyond comprehension. Difference, after all - the determinations that God makes, the divine attributes (to perhaps merge the Islamic and Spinozist sense of this term 'attribute') are God's mark, God's word.
Furthermore, it seems we have evidence that this expressing and determining that God does leads to a lowering in intensity. The world "cools down" as it gets further and further away from God, eventually coagulating into representation. And isn't this what God wants? Relief from the horror of its own Glory? Isn't God perhaps subject to greater intensity that it itself can bear?
Obviously these things are obscure. Can we say anything more about this expression, this choice, this will? There was a time when I had a strong interest in the idea that will operates at the quantum level - with the collapse of the wave function and so forth. I recall that Zizek, Dan Siegel and Caroline Leaf all present different accounts of this idea. I wonder if it would be possible to articulate a negative theology of God's will that isn't strictly a negative theology at all, but is a sort of cognitive instantiation of a Hilbert space.