Pynchon as propaganda

[Paul Mackin]

On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 09:42, Terrance wrote: 
> > 
> > Oh, THAT nothingness.
> 
> What? What "Nothingness" is taboo for a Christian? 
> Nothing after death? Nothing in heaven? Nothing in hell? Nothing but
> flesh? Nothing but dust? 

I was being hopelessly metaphysical and theological because that was
what would seem like where the chaplains would be coming from. This is
why NOTHINGNESS did not stand out on their list of topics for me to the
extent it did for Rob.I was back with St. Thomas and Aristotle whereas
Rob was up  into the loneliness and meaninglessness of the human
condition sort of thing. Sartre's freedom . Being and Nothingness. Being
and No-thingness. Or, since Rob was speaking of the possible religion of
Pynchon, Kirkegaard's need for God was part of it.



> Seems to me that if you take the phrase out of the book it looks like a
> common list of big-time theological concepts. These are taken up
> together everyday by priests and their flock, by theologians, by
> students of religion and philosophy and so on. Being and god and
> nothingness and redemption and grace...nothingness...these are concepts
> that Pynchon explores in his very first novel and in his last novel too.
> I can't quite see how "nothingness" is the cockroach on the wedding cake
> here. In fact, if god is the sore thumb, the other terms fit like four
> fingers in a glove. Or a fist if you've been studying brazilian
> catholicism. 
> 
You are thinking like me.


> A crazy christian? What on earth or in heaven is a crazy christian?
> Thomas Merton? How about Aquinas? "Nothingness" is as important to crazy
> christian theology as it is to crazy zen buddhism. So, maybe Pynchon is
> a crazy zen-christian? Who the hell knows? 

I was just riffing on a sentence from Kerouac in which someone is called
"some kind of crazy Christian saint." Couldn't resist applying the
phraseology  to the Pincher. 


> I think, Robert, you must have other reasons for suggesting that
> "nothingness" sticks out here. Even if it doesn't, it's still worth
> talking about. What about "nothingness" in GR? I guess Sartre or
> Kierkegaard or Merton or Nishida Kitaro or Nietzsche or Faucault or
> Hegel or Schelling or Plato or Aristotle or Taoism, Buddhism, etc... can
> serve as well as others...