Sorry, Edward, if what I wrote sounded mysterious. I apologize. In fact, I don't know how to write (philosophy) blog posts in the sense that I never know how to pitch whatever I feel the urge to say. I like the idea of "philosophy that is not (yet) fit to print". I never know what to assume a potential blog reader to be familiar and I often end up writing blog posts almost only for myself. Maybe I overdid this time. I apologize. As we discuss here I'll get a sense of what is the philpercs community like.
The post is about my struggle to bring together two of my central interests now: first, philosophies of process and in particular those that posit agents, like Whitehead's and second, deconstruction, especially in connection to how Levinas shaped Derrida's preoccupations with reading and composing text. As your issues seem to be primarily with what I say about the second, I'll concentrate on that.
I believe deconstruction tries to rather engage in some sort of mutual illumination. Bruce Baugh, on his book on the reception of Hegel in France, seems to indicate that Derrida reforms Hegel but keeps faithful to some central tenets of his thought . It is as if one could have a post-Levinas Hegel (or a post-Levinas Husserl). It is my contention that deconstruction does nothing of the sort. It rather makes the friction (between Levinas and Husserl - or Hegel) harder and multifaceted. Not a friction that is aimed at a final truth, but rather one that is aimed at a justice in dialogue. Dialogue - and difference - is not meant to be exorcized and dismissed but rather preserved and in order to do that, it should respond to justice.
I do believe that some elements of these procedure can be speculatively generalized. In the post I just wanted to suggest some ways to do that with the help of Whitehead. Maybe I go back to this in a next post.
Please let me know if I made myself a bit clearer.
Thanks for your comment.