Pynchon as propaganda

[jbor]

on 6/4/03 12:09 PM, Paul Mackin at paul.mackin at verizon.net wrote:

> Who sez any of it is true?

Many people do say and believe that the various Christian versions of death
and salvation are true, and I think it's important to accept that fact and
to respect their beliefs. As I said originally, I don't see the passage as
being critical of either the soldiers or the chaplains.

The term "nothingness" derives from Sartre and Heidegger and not from
Christian theology, and it is not the same thing as Preterition at all. If
Preterition was what was meant then that would have been the term used. It
isn't. (Preterition wouldn't sit happily in that list either, by the way.)

Whichever way you look at it the idea of "nothingness" doesn't really fit
with the other four concepts the chaplains talk to the soldiers about. Put
it under erasure if you like; it just struck me as significant.

All I did was to offer an interpretation of the specific passage from GR
which was being reappropriated to propagandistic ends. I made no reference
to my beliefs, to yours, Pynchon's, or anyone else's, except to say that the
paragraph from the text reads most coherently and powerfully from an
atheistic standpoint. And added that even floating that as a possibility
here is something which is generally met with vitriol and condemnation.

best


> The chaplains themselves may not believe it
> literally but their chore is to ease the pain of the soldiers who just
> might believe or would like to believe it and who may just have enjoyed
> their last breakfast. Why should we care or Pynchon care that the myth
> is just a myth.The dead will be dead and will be beyond care. The alive
> can go out and get good and drunk.
> 
> I don't believe. You don't believe. The text neither believes nor
> disbelieves I don't imagine Terrance believes but I'll let him answer if
> he thinks the question is worth bothering with. Belief here is a
> complete non-issue.Not the point of the passage at all.The point of the
> passage is frightened men dying.
>> 
>> Don't know of any Christian religion which endorses "nothingness" as its
>> central tenet, which is why it really stands out for me in that list.
> 
> Nothingness is the state of non-being one finds oneself in immediately
> upon having had one's head blown off. (Or in more peaceful times upon
> dying abed.) It it weren't for this deplorable state of mortal  affairs
> there would be no point to the Christian promise of resurrection of the
> body. To be passed over is the condition of remaining in the state (or
> non-state) of nothingness. What else could you call complete
> obliteration but nothingness. Don't blame me. That's what they believe
> or at least would like to believe.
> 
>> I realise that even suggesting that atheism might be a driving force within
>> Pynchon's texts is tantamount to treason here, and not open for civil
>> discussion, but it seems to me that the possibility that a "God" or gods
>> don't exist is consistently excluded by some when in fact it is the basis of
>> belief systems held by many people across all cultures. Such intolerance
>> does make a mockery of claims to pluralism and respect, of course.
> 
> Huh? Do you mean me? Terrance?
> 
> P.
>