The second excerpt, while distinguishing between the conditional and unconditional, does not turn the latter into a sacred a-part-ness. Like when he says that the latter is not something like unconditional love but more like an amorphous call or mystery, not defined to be something as specific as that. It doesn't have to be The Good (or the true or the beautiful). It's just openness to the unknown which allows for the only constant, change.
Kind of like the impossible in the 3rd excerpt. It is "not something above and beyond the possible" but something possible in the here and now if we but remain open with blind faith, for to condition the unconditional with any"thing" is antithetical to its unknowable, yet felt (intuited?) and present, mystery. And there really is no comfort in that at all. So what "good" is it then? No good whatsoever (if we define it as Hagglund suggests Caputo does).