Convergence, Divergence and Governance in Evolution

Contrary to the implications of Teilhard De Chardin, convergence and simplicity are not opposites, divergence is not merely the lack of complexity, divergence is not a Roussean return to the primitive, convergence is not the only good movement in evolution.

Divergence is vital in evolution, but so is convergence, the results of divergence in selection are made to last with convergence. This is the Ordered Evolution I speak of, with “order” more or less defining convergence, and “evolution” defining divergence.  This then defines Revitalized Conservatism.

Divergence does not mean anarchy, anarchy is a less civilized simplicity. Efficient institutions are a sign of the civilizing of the beast, not a sign of decadence.

Representative government seems to be the middle ground between various kinds of dictatorship and elitist aristocracy---we need real elected representative leaders, not the totalitarian masses to lead. The Church offers voluntary guidance, separate from the state, even if in its own institution the Church is a form of monarchy.

Small states need to evolve at their own pace, some faster, some slower, but all guided to Godhood, voluntarily, in this theological materialism. Monism is not the totalitarian "sociological monism" of Teilhard (and Marx), the path to the Supreme Monism of Godhood, for all, is through divergence, protected in its convergence with a light federalism, or subsidiarity as the Church calls it, as we evolve to Godhood.

We will need to diverge from the human species if we are to evolve to Godhood, we cannot stop at humans no matter how wonderful we are.  Contrary to Teilhard, Godhood does not transcend matter to the spiritual, Godhood is the evolution of the material to the supermaterial.