GR 'Streets' (death and/or afterlife)

[Paul Mackin]

On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 02:13, Scott Badger wrote:
> 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).




This sounds right to me.

Although the text likens Rapier's preaching to the "preaching" of (more
properly the view of) de Chardin there is really little similarity
between the two. For the famous paleontologist all is forward
progression toward the omega point (which is God), with no question of,
or reason for, ever going back to anything, only forward to the final
unity. For Rapier return is a desired goal, the going back to a more
paradisiacal state, though an elusive one, which may never be achieved.

Think this is more or less right.

P.