There is a greater context to that excerpt, the passage cited, belongs to a character, Abu Jabbar, the Possibility Merchant.
I don’t recall thinking of the elusive divinity pattern as God toying with people as ‘playthings’; that wasn’t the relation, at all, that I had in mind. The divine would be beyond such figures of control.
Your notion of the absolute as an “addressable reality” locates the divine in the realms of addressability and realisation. Whether those realms are ‘formal’ or ‘material’, ‘transcendent’ or ‘immanent’, they would all take on those respective qualities with reference to each other, such referential distribution constituting and conditioning what can be called, ‘a world’. If this ‘addressable absolute’ is contingent on voluntary relation, does this not imply the worldly feature of psychological attitude?
Thus, assuming such an implication, this presentation of the divine rests on attitudinal gestures of psychic illumination, as so many flickering ‘souls’, divinely patterned flecks of existential light.
I wouldn’t want to limit the divine to a structure of addressability, alone, or even the moonlit surface of oceanic illumination used as metaphor, by Abu Jabbar, the Possibility Merchant. But these are all perspectives that say something, and I would not wish to discount any of them out of hand, or deny them their divine share.
The notion of addressability is interesting. Because, of course, the immediate suggestion would be communication mediums, such as language, whether in greater senses, as in the entire world as a language, or more specific codes of communion, such as the range of anthropic languages. Then, of course, there is the language of ‘feeling’, the codes of ‘affect’, in which the transactions of ‘soul’ are inscribed. All these different codes write each other, affect each other. The divine would be beyond, always beyond, such ‘languages’ and ‘codes’.
But is not ‘beyond’ a semantic code? But being such, need not at all invalidate its divine possibility.