++> Some comments on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
 
 ++> Getting back to you on Chardin after some turns with the
 ++> "death penalty" and "fly logic".......
 
    He, being a bit of enigma (scientist-philosopher-mystic?),
 does not actually leave a clear path. I'm not at all sure of
 my own understanding his conceptual imagery. That his philosophical
 (though best known) energies were actually minor to his
 paleological career suggests an oft compartmentalized choice
 of (or dictated to) interests. ...the Roman Church, ever distrustful
 of his religious directions, strove to keep him very busy as traveler
 & scientist (its love/hate relationship with  "quiet gnosticism"
 ever teasing to haunt their judgments). Also, I found that my
 reading his words were, often enough, in disagreement with others
 that wrote of him (I was not sure if Huxley agreed, tolorated or
 could even understand our Chardin). I never saw him as mystic,
 seeming more to me, the scientist-  obsessed with bringing HIS
 God/Jesus into the total equation as a "central" player in HIS
 giant rising dream. Though I liked it (and even adopted it into
 my own pleasures of knowing), his play of conscious motivation
 driving/leading evolution with mutation a spark in the design,
 was some extra other beyond the present conservatism of science.
 In his "noogenesis", I saw his man-God-merge, just beginning
 (20/21st century) the rise, much as the first instants of a rocket
 taking off with lots of dissipating power and noise, then to lift
 ever faster into a new and knowable direction. I saw his "omega
 point" as the END of the purely man-stage of history (though he
 did clever-ish equate it centering sacred).  That this crisscrossing
 partnership (consciousness being a dimension to meet in) would be
 flagged by a global coming together ("noosphere") of objective
 knowledge (some now say the internet or a next more advanced cousin
 of it), was a correct foresight, *BUT*but from my view, he tended
 to "brush aside"  many darker, inconvenient possibles.....!
    His moving bridge construct between science and God was
 beautiful, even elegant ...but fragile. That he would attempt
 such a bridge, WITHOUT demanding faith, is what caught him in
 the corner of my eye (and the raised brow of his church)!   I
 suppose he could, and was, read *differently* across his range
 of readers .....which I don't think were many as you were one
 of the few admitted to have done so.    It could also be that
 many tried his ideas on; and were not so impressed..........!
 He may, perhaps, be caught up in one of his own terms-
                              .........his "complexifications"
 
 .....just some words, as I may have missed right over what he
 thought he said.....his "end of world" ^BEGINNING^, something
 other than I notioned out of it all  ......my mind bags often
 shake up all the junk I stuff in them      .....YES .....!
 
                      oo ... Dave
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------