No, it's not. Immanence is still a noun, unless you think you can coherently use it in a sentence as a verb. Mysticism does not make conceptual language non-conceptual, and recognizing that language is conceptual doesn't mean that all knowledge must be so as well.
Mystics do use language differently. That's why they are often not understood and why they stay pretty private among themselves. The different language part of the Mystic is why so many have been punished, tried as heretics, imprisoned and some even burned at the stake, and today called incoherent.
You've now defined God as Immanence (and thus reduced him to a concept in the process), and are using this as a weapon to attack anyone who thinks that theology can be approached conceptually instead of just through direct, intuitive experience.
Your clearly missing the point. I'm not "defining" anything. I'm "experiencing"!
Conceptional knowing and inner experiential knowing are two different things that come from two different directions. For instance, a person can read about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as a concept. Or they can actually can go through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ with Christ as One with Him.
If you really like Meister Eckhart, perhaps you should explore the ways in which he was a scholastic instead of solely a mystic, because this anti-philosophical attack on conceptual language is really unnecessary.
Meister Eckhart was accused of heresy and was tried as such in large part because the language he used wasn't understood by those in power. I'm being reminded here of why Mystics are not understood and why they stay silent.
Yes, Eckhart was a scholastic, I'd say even a genus. But he was also a great Mystic who would go inward and experience thing's like:
"The Word lies hidden in the Soul, unknown and unheard unless room is made for it in the ground of hearing, otherwise it is not heard. All voices and sounds must cease and there must be pure stillness within, a still silence".
As an aside, Meister Eckhart teaches that every creature is a Word of God. And where "Christ is all and in all". Eckhart insisted that revelation came from two volumes, one written in nature and one in the Bible. "
God loves all creatures equally and fills them with his being", Eckhart writes. I take that as an example of Immanence experienced as alive, vibrant and full of life with in Life itSelf.
You do know that I started out with mysticism, right? Understanding linguistics doesn't mean I'm not familiar with mysticism as well. Mysticism doesn't need to involve the misuse of language. If you want to use the word "immanence" as a metaphor and talk about it as if it were a verb, then I have no problem with that, but declaring that it is a verb for those who know how to see properly is simply ridiculous. You are the one turning God into a concept here by insisting on certain linguistically charged conceptualizations.
I don't think I said anything about seeing Immanence as a Verb as being the "proper" way to see it. What I'm saying is that's the way a Mystic would "experience" it. They see things differently. With your history of mysticism you than are aware of the "experiential" aspect of how Mystics work, right? Have you put yourself into a bee flying around flowers? Or maybe even into the Heart of Christ?
Here's some other examples from Mystics themselves:
Hieldegard of Bingen talked about the "greening power of the Divine". That's what she saw in Nature that it best understood when taken as a Verb being experienced.
Pieerre Teilhard de Charden saw the essence of Christ with in an evolving Universe. It's a Cosmic Christ perspective that is best understood when taken as a Verb being experienced.
Mother Teresa of Calcutta has taken a beating here in this forum, but the following story about one of her sisters that I came across in "
The Inner Eye of Love". by William Johnson is an example of Immanence as something other than a Noun.
“During the mass,” I said, “you saw that the priest touched the body of Christ with great love and tenderness. When you touch the poor today, you too will be touching the body of Christ. Give them the same love and tenderness.” When they return several hours later, the new sister came up to me, her face shining with joy, “I have been touching the body of Christ of three hours,“ she said. I asked her what she had done, “Just as we arrived, the sister brought in a man covered with maggots. He had been picked up from drain. I have been taking care of him, I have been touching Christ. I know it was him,” she said.
The scholastics and the mystics are the same people.
That's a rare thing actually. Most scholastics don't have a clue of mysticism. That's because they mainly work in the head and have no clue about knowledge gained from their inner experience, or gnosis (little g). Moving out of the head and into inner experience is why Mystics such as Eckhart use Apophatic Divinity as a tool to get there.
There is one scholastic that very much was a Mystic. And that's Einstein. I've read where he would put himself into his equations and ride them to see where they went.
