De~reconstruction

Following up on this post, in this piece Faber elucidates what he calls de/construction, which is highly akin to what I call de~reconstruction (or de~re):

"With a slash between 'de' and 'construction,' I want to emphasize a polar circulation between the 'de-' of 'resolving' a monadic whole and the 'con-' of 'integrating' multiplicities anew into a (now) rhizomatic whole."

And an excerpted quote from Divine Multiplicity:

"Multiplicity as mutual interdependence of part and whole reflects Whitehead's contention that, since there is no absolute context, there are no absolutely separated contexts either. Hence, the very environment of a polydox articulation of the sacred or divine (in) multiplicity must be polyphonic in nature, in order to be healing from occupations and separations. [...] The process pluralism we suggest here is an enfolding and unfolding pluralism, a relational and differential pluralism in a process of ever-new constellations of complication and uncertainty -- an uncertainty that is complex because it names a mystery that cannot detect the sacred without an inherent love for the manifold in which it is enfolded."

A few points on the extended quote. There's a lot of en-and un-folding going on. Also an emphasis on interactive prepositions: across, between, beyond. All reminiscent of the IPS fold thread, which weaves in some of these theologians and ideas.

These folks do not seek another, better religion. Same for a better supertheory. Both of which presume that reality can be "reduced to only one kind of experience and understanding." Polydoxy instead refutes an "absolute context" while also acknowledging "there are no absolutely separated contexts either."

I also appreciate the relation of polydoxy to the co-origination of nirvana and samsara, as I too have spent volumes on the topic. And how this relates to the difference between metaphysical and postmetaphysical Buddhism.  (If you really have to have a Fourth Turning therein, this is it.)