Dialectics and conspiracy

[Lycidas at worldnet.att.net]

Ann Oy wrote:
> 
> A Cartesian totality is just the sum of the parts where the whole is
> determined by the parts.
> A Hegelian/Marxist/Dialectic totality consists of parts predetermined by
> the whole.
> Of course the latter is a conspiracy.  Demanding, unknowable. Quite Likely
> Hostile.
> Of course the former is a conspiracy since rich men will always congregate
> in some corner and plot.
> Hegelian dialectics allows no political action since all action is impotent
> in the face of the Spirit.
> " . . . every concrete difference featured in the Hegelian totality,
> including the 'spheres' visible in this totality . . . are no more than
> moments of the simple internal principle of the totality which fulfills
> itself by negating the alienated differences that it posed . . ."
> Althusser, 1979. A Marxist dialectic which frees action from the demands of
> History has yet to be constructed.
> In GR we have:
> "Wimpe smiled back. . . 'Marxist dialectics? That's not an opiate, eh?'
> Tchitcherine responds "'It's the antidote.'"
> Wimpe continues "' . . .  Die to help History grow a bit closer.
> Revolutionary suicide, fine. But look: if History's changes are inevitable,
> why not die? Vaslav? If it's going to happen anyway, what does it matter?'
>  . . .
> Wimpe continues "'That doesn't sound very dialectical.'
> 'I don't know what it is.'
> 'Then, right up to the point of decision,' Wimpe curious but careful, 'a
> man could still be perfectly pure . . .'
> 'He could be anything. I don't care. But he's only real at the points of
> decision, The time between doesn't matter.'
> 'Real to a Marxist?'
> 'No. Real to himself.'
> Wimp looks doubtful."


YES!  Dialectic and conspiracy AND satire. Pynchon is 
satirizing dialectic and conspiracy. The conspiracies in GR
are, political, economic, historical, psychological,
theological, we might say Universal. They are ubiquitous and
insidious, like an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient god
gone mad--down to the smallest elements of expanding or
contracting nature/mind and out into the vast expanding or
contracting space/mind.   Would it make sense for Pynchon to
introduce his own conspiracy to the text or subtext, even
while he satirizes Universal conspiracies?