GR 'Streets' (death and/or afterlife)

[Scott Badger]

Paul:
>I suspect, since Terrance has been telling us to read Father Rapier,
>this reference relates in part at least to de Chardin's idea of
>convergence of matter toward a final unity (omega point), which for
>Rapier rather comically becomes the reaching of "Critical Mass" where
>technology has reached the point of development where there in no longer
>the possibility for freedom. Also Rapier injects the unorthodox idea
>that "they" may never die,. with the unfortunate consequence that the
>despoiling of the earth and nature will go on unchecked, which is
>equivalent to Pynchonian "no return" or "no way back." However Rapier
>adds a "disclaimer" to the effect that perhaps it is still possible to
>make "them" die if not in their beds but by violence. That's my
>understanding of what Father Rapier is preaching in the Pynchonian Hell
>scene.


I understand Chardin's theory of evolution to be that of a progression from
inanimate matter at one end to a state of pure spirituality at the finish
line; the initial spark resulting from a "convergence of matter", unto some
critical mass, that Paul mentions above. A process of ceaseless change (no
return), but directed towards a particular end-state (a lot like the
"popular" view of evolution, beginning with the primordial ooze, and
contemporary Man a stepping stone to some giant-headed, telepathic-talking
superhuman). Chardin's idea of evolution assumes a tendency towards greater
complexity - lower to higher forms - that results, I think, from an
"attractive" force (Love) between disparate elements. Lower, or less
complex, elements are gathered by this force through an evolutionary process
until a critical mass is reached, and a new higher/more complex form is
created. The first of these points of critical mass being the emergence of
Life.

Father R warns of another point of critical mass, one of political
"connectedness", which leads to a totality of control - and end-state that
offers "no return". But for Rapier, no return is a *cessation* of the change
possible through Their death. And it seems the padre understands, in these
times, how difficult it can be to have faith that They *can* die, that there
*can be* a "Return". Here I read Return as, not to the Garden, but to a
directionless (scatter-brained) process of change. Evolution without the
Meaning that Chardin invests it with.

I'm reminded of the pea-pod in MD, "something never seen before, and never
to be seen again"(paraphrased).

Scott Badger