At the end of Adventures of Ideas, exploring the profoundly de/constructive implications of the “principle of limitation,” Whitehead’s divine explodes into a polyphilic multiplicity of open concepts in mutual suspension—Supreme Adventure, initial Eros, final Fact, Harmonies of Harmonies, Adventure of the Universe as One, the union of Zest with Peace, final Beauty, tragic Beauty, the Great Fact (AI, 295–96)—where theopoetics becomes both multiple and experimental at the same time.1 As the divine is diffused into the process of the becoming-manifold in such multiple and experimental ways, so does its “poetics” become this multiple and experiential diffusion. The spacing (mapping) of the traces (poietics) of this multiple divine (theios) is the task of theopoetics. The “traces” it leaves sensed in polyphilia; the “map” unfolded as divine comedìa; its expressions steeped in irreducibly many poetics—is theoplicity, “demonstrated” by mapping the symbolic traces of disappearance, “played” on the enfolded exclusion or subtraction. This is the concept of “polypoetics” of the poiesis of the divine in multiplicity.
Polypoetics in this sense is, however, not a theoretical construct to satisfy metaphysical “games,” but a serious instrument of analysis of our world of power and its “games” of oppression. Polypoetics is a de/construction of such games of power in terms of the comedìa divina, its revolt against a dualism (AI, 190) that, in its many forms, guides or justifies religious, social, cultural, and political violence. The “constructive” mechanism of power either omits the divine in multiplicity (for the free game of power) or controls it with the One, the Two, and the Many (as justification of power). Instead of the oppressive implications of these two alternatives of reduction, abstraction, and legislation, polyphilic polypoetics radically articulates the infinite foldings of becoming for which “God” symbolizes the mystery of their dignity.
- Roland Faber, "Polypoetics," in Depths as Yet Unspoken: Whiteheadian Excursions in Mysticism, Multiplicity and Divinity
...Whitehead’s reorientation of the apophatic makes all the difference. While for classical negative theology, apophasis categoreally or apodictically addressed the unknowability of the essence of the divine or ultimate reality, Whitehead situates the apophatic in the future of becoming, as the source of the novelty of the not yet.21 While the approach of negative theology was to name only what cannot be said about the divine, Whitehead’s nothingness of the future is filled with the infinite potentials for that which is not yet