A tiny question.

[Paul Mackin]

On Sat, 30 Dec 1995 Jhildt at aol.com wrote: (based on hg's and grips oposing
views, I think)

> <Here is the von Braun quote:
>      Nature does not know extinction, only transformation. Everything 
>      science has taught me, and continues to teach me, strengthens my 
>      belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death (GR, 1).
>  
> <The quote is nonsense of course>
> 
> Makes sense to me.  The only word I might argue with is "our."  "We" after
> all are nothing, except perhaps to ourselves.


Seems like taking out the "our" would remove the whole force of the
remark. Without it, there's nothing left but plain physics. Nothing is 
created or destroyed. Who could disagree with that?

GR may contain many instances of taking a scientific theorem and extending
its application capriciously and often amusingly. You could almost say this
is a Pynchon _signature_.

How about the extension of Pavlov's pathbreaking findings on neuronal
activity to the psychiatric level? There the old physiologist does Pynchon's
work for him, to a considerable degree. I have a feeling "The Book" in its
original makes pretty bizarre reading.

Placing the von Braun quote (historic or fictional) so prominently at the 
beginning of the book is a harbinger of things to come.

Just as Nixon's "What?" is at the end.

Or so it seems to me.

					P.