Showing posts with label David Foster Wallace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Foster Wallace. Show all posts

Saturday 7 October 2023

Endnotes





Endnotes | David Foster Wallace | BBC Documentary

Professor Geoff Ward discusses The Life and Works of David Foster Wallace

"When David Foster Wallace hanged himself in 2008, at the age of 46, he was considered by many to be the most gifted and linguistically exuberant American novelist and short story writer of his generation. His books include the 1,000-page Infinite Jest, a novel of grand ambition and stylistic experiment that came complete with 388 endnotes. (Footnotes, digressions, constant second guessing of every thought are features of Wallace's signature style).

In April The Pale King, Wallace's final, unfinished novel will be published. Few literary novels have been more eagerly anticipated in recent years. Its great subject is Boredom. Wallace set himself big challenges. Infinite Jest attacked the entertainment industry while trying to entertain and The Pale King engages with boredom as a path toward transcendence.

This Sunday Feature is presented by Professor Geoff Ward, author of a literary history of America. He, like many, was convinced Wallace would be the preeminent American writer to reckon with in the years ahead, and was shocked by his tragic early death. He assesses Wallace's legacy, themes and preoccupations, talking to the precursor Wallace admired most, Don DeLillo, and to friends, collaborators and contemporaries such as Mark Costello and Rick Moody. In the company of The Writer's sister, Amy Wallace, Ward travels to The Midwest of America where The Writer grew up, and considers the impact of place on his imagination. He also talks to Wallace's publisher and editor Michael Pietsch about the difficult task of assembling Wallace's final fragments into The Pale King.

The programme also contains some rare archive reflections by a young David Foster Wallace, recorded a year before the publication of Infinite Jest, on The Role of The Writer in an Age of Media-saturation." (BBC Radio 3)

Friday 6 October 2023

The Wolf, The Ram and The Hart

……I’m not sure The Priests 
can be Trusted.

—Wyndham-Pryce

“There's something magical for me 
about Literature and Fiction, and 
I Think it can Do Things, not only 
that pop culture can’t Do, 
but they're urgent, now — 

One is that, by creating 
A Character in a piece of Fiction
You can allow a Reader 
to leap over The Wall of Self  
and to imagine himself being 
not just somewhere else, 
but someone elsein a way 
the Television and Movies,
that no other form can do
because people, I think, 
are essentially lonely and alone 
and frightened of being alone”

— Foster

Megatron, aboard the 
Hijacked Shuttle —

His Fusion-cannon
building in charge;
His smile, bent

On the evening of their final night together, at The End of The Tour
The Davids are treating themselves (and each other) 
to a final, Last Supper-communion feast of 
McDonalds take-out ‘on Jann’, courtesy of the graces of
Young David’s Rolling Stone expense account —

Foster :
Uh, We'll take all of these.

David :
Please, Let Me.

Foster :
Oh, no, you don't have
to pay for my shit.

David :
No, no. It's not coming out of my pocket,
I have an expense account.

Foster :
If you insist, yeah.



Foster :
Mmm.

David :
If we ate like this all the time...

Foster :
Yeah.

David :
What would be wrong with that?

Foster :
(CHUCKLES) What would be wrong
Like, besides your teeth falling out 
and getting really fat?

It's got none of the 
nourishment
of real Food...

David :
No.

Foster :
...but it is real pleasurable, masticating 
and swallowing this stuff.

David :
Yes, it is. 

Foster :
It's like seductive commercial entertainment.

David :
Mmm. But What Saves Us is that
most entertainment is not very good.

Foster :
Yeah, but what about good seductive 
commercial entertainment, like, uh, 
Die Hard?

David :
That first Die Hard?

Foster :
The first Die Hard.

David :
Great film.

Foster :
No, it's a brilliant film.

David :
The Best.

Foster :
Absolutely.

David :
So good.

Foster :
I Think if The Book 
is about anything...

David :
Yeah.

Foster :
...it's about The Question of Why.

David :
Right.

Foster :
Why am I watching all this shit?

David :
Right. Right, yeah.

Foster :
It's not about the shit.
It's about Me.

David :
Okay.

Foster :
So, why am I Doing it?
And what's so American
about What I'm Doing?

….You know, the minute I start talking about this stuff,
it sounds, number one, very vague,
and number two, really reductive.

David :
No, no, no. I don't think you're 
being vague or reductive at all.

Foster :
Okay, because I don't have a diagnosis or a 
System of Prescription as to why We...

When I Say "We," I mean
people just like You and Me :
Mostly white, upper-middle class,
obscenely well-educated,
doing really interesting jobs,
sitting in really expensive chairs...

David :
Yeah.

Foster :
...watching the best, most sophisticated
electronic equipment Money can buy —
Why Do We Feel so empty and unhappy?

David :
Right. No. It's kind of like Hamlet,
except with channel surfing.


Foster :
I'm not saying that watching TV is bad
or a waste of your time, any more than 
masturbation is bad or 
a waste of your time

It's a pleasurable way to 
spend a few minutes,
but if you're doing it 
20 times a day...

David :
Right.

Foster :
If your primary sexual relationship is
with your own hand, something is Wrong.

David :
Yeah, except, at least with masturbation, some 
action is being performed though, right?
Isn't that... That's better.

Foster :
…..okay, You can make Me look like
a real dick if You print this.

David :
(CHUCKLES) No, I'm not going to,
but if you can, Speak into The Mic.

Foster :
Yes, you're performing 
muscular movements
with your hand as you're jerking off,
but what you're really doing, 
I Thinkis --

You're running A Movie 
in Your Head.

Yeah, I’ve seen This Bit before.
You said that sentence 
got away from you.

…It….  got away from me, yeah.


Next thing You’re Going to Say
is “Well, I can Hear You.

Well, I can Hear You.


You're having A Fantasy-relationship
with somebody who is not real, strictly 
to stimulate a neurological response.




This is Impossible!

I know, it’s brilliant!




Foster :
So look, as The Internet grows 
in the next 10, 15 years and 
Virtual-Reality pornography
becomes a reality...

David :
Hmm.

Foster :
...we're gonna have to develop some 
real Machinery inside Our Guts to 
turn-off pure, unalloyed pleasure.
Or, I don't know about you,
I'm gonna have to Leave The Planet.

David :
Why?

Foster :
'Cause The Technology is just
gonna get better and better,
and it's gonna get easier and easier,
and more and more convenient,
and more and more pleasurable
to sit alone

With images on a screen given to Us 
by People who Do Not Love Us,
but want Our Money.

And that's fine in low doses.

But if it's the basic main staple
of your diet, You're gonna Die.

David :
Well, come on.

Foster :
In a very Meaningful way,
You're Going to Die.

The Following Morning :
The Last Day.


(Foster puts a wad of chewing 
tobacco in his mouth — )

David :
Hey, can I try that, actually?

Foster :
Yeah, it takes some getting 
used-to. Go ahead.

David :
Thanks.

Foster :
(Points at his mouth) It goes 
right there.

David :
(CHUCKLES) Yeah, I know.

MmmHmm.

That's, um... Mmm
Actually, can I use 
your bathroom
for a second?

Foster :
(quietly smirking) I believe 
it's unoccupied.

David :
Right. Hmm.

(WATER RUNNING)
- (FLIPS PAPER)

Friday 22 September 2023

Oblivion





David Foster Wallace Interview and 
Reading from "Oblivion" on WPR (2004)


In fact, The 'Oblivion Machine' is the name 
in this story for The Entertainment INDUSTRY 
- comics, books, mags, film, TV, social media
that consumes our mortal hours, 
wasting The Days of Our Lives in
'picture shows' of all kinds.


Days of Our Lives is an American Television soap opera 
which originally aired on the American Television 
Network NBC from 1965 to 2022
and is one of the longest-running scripted 
Television programs in The World, 
airing nearly every weekday 
since November 8, 1965.

Seamless Branching



Seamless Branching of 
The Theatrical Version
Special Edition Version and 
Extended Special Edition Version




“That’s the movie’s main plot, but let’s observe here that one of T2’s subplots actually echoes Cameron’s Schwarzenegger dilemma and creates a kind of weird metacinematic irony. 

Whereas T1 had argued for a certain kind of metaphysical passivity (i.e., Fate is unavoidable, and Skynet’s attempts to alter History serve only to bring it about), Terminator 2’s metaphysics are more active

In T2, The Connors take a page from Skynet’s book and try to head off the foreordained nuclear holocaust, first by trying to Kill Skynet’s inventor and then by destroying Cyberdyne’s labs and the first Terminator’s CPU (though why John Connor spends half the movie carrying the deadly CPU chip around in his pocket instead of just throwing it under the first available steamroller remains unclear and irksome). 

The Point here is that the protagonists’ attempts to revise The “Script” of History in T2 parallel The Director’s having to muck around with T2’s own script in order to get Schwarzenegger to be in the movie. 

Multivalent ironies like this — which require that film audiences know all kinds of behind-the-scenes stuff from watching Entertainment Tonight and reading (umm) certain magazines — are not commercial PostModernism at its finest.” 

— David Foster Wallace

The Intentional Fallacy




The New Critics, rather level-headedly at first, 
sought to dethrone The Author 
by attacking what they called “The Intentional Fallacy.” 

Writers are sometimes wrong about what their texts mean, or sometimes have no idea what they really mean. Sometimes The Text’s meaning even changes for The Writer. 

It doesn’t matter what The Writer means, basically, for The New Critics; 
it matters only what The Text says

This critical overthrow of creative intent set the stage for the poststructural show that opened a couple decades later. The deconstructionists (“deconstructionist” and “poststructuralist” mean the same thing, by the way : “poststructuralist” is what you call a deconstructionist who doesn’t want to be called a deconstructionist), explicitly following Husserl and Brentano and Heidegger the same way The New Critics had co-opted Hegel, see the debate over the ownership of meaning as a skirmish in a larger war in Western philosophy over the idea that presence and unity are ontologically prior to expression. There’s been this longstanding deluded presumption, they think, that if there is an utterance then there must exist a unified, efficacious presence that causes and owns that utterance. The poststructuralists attack what they see as a post-Platonic prejudice in favour of Presence over Absence and Speech over Writing

We tend to trust Speech over Writing because of the immediacy of The Speaker : he’s right there, and we can grab him by the lapels and look into his face and figure out just exactly what one single thing he means. But the reason why the poststructuralists are in the Literary Theory business at all is that they see Writing, not Speech, as more faithful to the metaphysics of True Expression. 

For Barthes, Derrida, and Foucault, Writing is a better animal than Speech because it is iterable; it is iterable because it is abstract; and it is abstract because it is a function not of presence but of absence : The Reader’s absent when The Writer’s writing, and The Writer’s absent when The Reader’s reading. For The Deconstructionist, then, a writer’s circumstances and intentions are indeed a part of the “context” of a text, but context imposes no real cinctures on The Text’s meaning, because Meaning in Language requires a cultivation of Absence rather than Presence, involves not the imposition but the erasure of consciousness. This is so because these guys — Derrida following Heidegger and Barthes Mallarmé and Foucault God knows who — see Literary Language as not a tool but an environment

A Writer does not wield Language; he is subsumed in it. 
Language Speaks Us; Writing Writes; etc. 

Hix makes little mention of Heidegger’s Poetry, Language, Thought or Derrida’s Margins of Philosophy, where all this stuff is set out most clearly, but he does quote enough Barthes — “To Write is… to reach that point where only Language acts, performs,’ and not Me’”— so you get the idea that author-as-owner is not just superfluous but contradictory, and enough Foucault — “The Writing of Our Day has freed itself from the necessity of ‘expression’; [it is] an Interplay of Signs, regulated less by The Content it signifies than by the very nature of The Signifier”— so you can see that even The New Critics’ Holy Text disappears as the unitary lodestone of Meaning and Value

For Hix’s Teachers, trying to attribute Writing’s meaning to a static Text 
or a Human author is like trying to knit Your Own Body, Your Own Needles

Hix has an even better sartorial image: “Previously, The Text was a cloth to be unraveled by The Reader; if the cloth were unwound all the way, The Reader would find The Author holding the other end

But Barthes makes The Text a shroud, and no one, not even a corpse, is holding the other end.”

Saturday 5 December 2020

We All Worship














“Greetings parents and congratulations to Kenyon’s graduating class of 2005. 
 
There are These Two Young Fish swimming along and they happen to meet An Older Fish swimming The Other Way, who nods at them and says 
 
“Morning, boys. How’s The Water?” 
 
And The Two Young Fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at The Other and goes 
 
“What The Hell is 'Water'?”
 
This is a standard requirement of US commencement speeches, the deployment of didactic little parable-ish stories. 

The story thing turns out to be one of the better, less bullshitty conventions of the genre, but if you’re worried that I plan to present myself here as the wise, older fish explaining what water is to you younger fish, please don’t be. 

I am not the wise old fish. 

The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about. 

Stated as an English sentence, of course, this is just a banal platitude, but the fact is that in the day to day trenches of adult existence, banal platitudes can have a Life or Death importance, or so I wish to suggest to you on this dry and lovely morning.

Of course the main requirement of speeches like this is that I’m supposed to talk about your liberal arts education’s meaning, to try to explain why the degree you are about to receive has actual human value instead of just a material payoff. 

So let’s talk about the single most pervasive cliché in the commencement speech genre, which is that a liberal arts education is not so much about filling you up with knowledge as it is about “Teaching you How to Think.” 

If you’re like me as a student, you’ve never liked hearing this, and you tend to feel a bit insulted by the claim that you needed anybody to teach you How to Think, since the fact that you even got admitted to a college this good seems like proof that you already know how to think. 

But I’m going to posit to you that the liberal arts cliché turns out not to be insulting at all, because the really significant education in thinking that we’re supposed to get in a place like this isn’t really about the capacity to think, but rather about The Choice of What to Think About

If your total Freedom of Choice regarding What to Think About seems too obvious to waste time discussing, I’d ask you to think about Fish and Water, and to bracket for just a few minutes your scepticism about The Value of The Totally Obvious.

Here’s another didactic little story. 


There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. 

One of the guys is religious, the other is An Atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. 

And The Atheist says: 
“Look, it’s not like I don’t have actual reasons for not believing in God. 
It’s not like I haven’t ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. 

Just last month I got caught away from the camp in that terrible blizzard, and I was totally lost and I couldn’t see a thing, and it was 50 below, and so I tried it: 

I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out --

‘Oh, God, if there is a God, I’m lost in this blizzard, and I’m gonna die if you don’t help me.’” 

And now, in the bar, the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled. 

“Well then you must believe now,” he says, 
“After all, here you are, alive.”

The Atheist just rolls his eyes. 

“No, man, all that was was a couple Eskimos happened to come wandering by and showed me the way back to camp.”


It’s easy to run this story through kind of a standard liberal arts analysis: the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people’s two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. 

Because we prize Tolerance and Diversity of Belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that One Guy’s Interpretation is True and The Other Guy’s is False or Bad. [ Even though it is. ]

Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just 
where these individual templates and beliefs come from. 

Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. 

As if a person’s most basic orientation toward The World, 
and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, 
like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from The Culture, like language. 

As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of 
personal, intentional choice

Plus, there’s the whole matter of Arrogance

The nonreligious guy is so totally certain in his dismissal of the possibility that the passing Eskimos had anything to do with his prayer for Help. 

True, there are plenty of religious people who seem arrogant and certain of their own interpretations, too. 

They’re probably even more repulsive than atheists, at least to most of us. 

But religious dogmatists’ problem is exactly the same as the story’s unbeliever : 

Blind Certainty, a close-mindedness that amounts to an imprisonment so total that The Prisoner doesn’t even know he’s locked up.

The point here is that I think this is one part of what Teaching Me How to Think is really supposed to mean. 

To be just a little less arrogant. 

To have just a little critical awareness about Myself and My Certainties. 

Because a huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, Totally Wrong and Deluded. 

I have learned this the hard way, as I predict you graduates will, too.

Here is just one example of the Total Wrongness of something I tend to be automatically sure of : 

Everything in my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the absolute centre of the universe; 

The realest, most vivid and important person in existence. 

We rarely think about this sort of natural, basic self-centredness because it’s so socially repulsive. 

But it’s pretty much the same for all of us. 

It is our default setting, hard-wired into our boards at birth. 

Think about it : there is no experience you have had that you are not the absolute centre of. 

The World as you experience it is there in front of YOU or behind YOU, to the left or right of YOU, on YOUR TV or YOUR monitor. And so on. 

Other People’s thoughts and feelings have to be communicated to you somehow, but your own are so immediate, urgent, real.

Please don’t worry that I’m getting ready to lecture you about compassion or other-directedness or all the so-called virtues. This is not a matter of virtue. It’s a matter of my choosing to do the work of somehow altering or getting free of my natural, hard-wired default setting which is to be deeply and literally self-centered and to see and interpret everything through this lens of self. People who can adjust their natural default setting this way are often described as being “well-adjusted”, which I suggest to you is not an accidental term.
Given the triumphant academic setting here, an obvious question is how much of this work of adjusting our default setting involves actual knowledge or intellect. This question gets very tricky. Probably the most dangerous thing about an academic education–least in my own case–is that it enables my tendency to over-intellectualise stuff, to get lost in abstract argument inside my head, instead of simply paying attention to what is going on right in front of me, paying attention to what is going on inside me.
As I’m sure you guys know by now, it is extremely difficult to stay alert and attentive, instead of getting hypnotised by the constant monologue inside your own head (may be happening right now). Twenty years after my own graduation, I have come gradually to understand that the liberal arts cliché about teaching you how to think is actually shorthand for a much deeper, more serious idea: learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed. Think of the old cliché about “the mind being an excellent servant but a terrible master.”
This, like many clichés, so lame and unexciting on the surface, actually expresses a great and terrible truth. It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in: the head. They shoot the terrible master. And the truth is that most of these suicides are actually dead long before they pull the trigger.
And I submit that this is what the real, no bullshit value of your liberal arts education is supposed to be about: how to keep from going through your comfortable, prosperous, respectable adult life dead, unconscious, a slave to your head and to your natural default setting of being uniquely, completely, imperially alone day in and day out. That may sound like hyperbole, or abstract nonsense. Let’s get concrete. The plain fact is that you graduating seniors do not yet have any clue what “day in day out” really means. There happen to be whole, large parts of adult American life that nobody talks about in commencement speeches. One such part involves boredom, routine and petty frustration. The parents and older folks here will know all too well what I’m talking about.
By way of example, let’s say it’s an average adult day, and you get up in the morning, go to your challenging, white-collar, college-graduate job, and you work hard for eight or ten hours, and at the end of the day you’re tired and somewhat stressed and all you want is to go home and have a good supper and maybe unwind for an hour, and then hit the sack early because, of course, you have to get up the next day and do it all again. But then you remember there’s no food at home. You haven’t had time to shop this week because of your challenging job, and so now after work you have to get in your car and drive to the supermarket. It’s the end of the work day and the traffic is apt to be: very bad. So getting to the store takes way longer than it should, and when you finally get there, the supermarket is very crowded, because of course it’s the time of day when all the other people with jobs also try to squeeze in some grocery shopping. And the store is hideously lit and infused with soul-killing muzak or corporate pop and it’s pretty much the last place you want to be but you can’t just get in and quickly out; you have to wander all over the huge, over-lit store’s confusing aisles to find the stuff you want and you have to manoeuvre your junky cart through all these other tired, hurried people with carts (et cetera, et cetera, cutting stuff out because this is a long ceremony) and eventually you get all your supper supplies, except now it turns out there aren’t enough check-out lanes open even though it’s the end-of-the-day rush. So the checkout line is incredibly long, which is stupid and infuriating. But you can’t take your frustration out on the frantic lady working the register, who is overworked at a job whose daily tedium and meaninglessness surpasses the imagination of any of us here at a prestigious college.
But anyway, you finally get to the checkout line’s front, and you pay for your food, and you get told to “Have a nice day” in a voice that is the absolute voice of death. Then you have to take your creepy, flimsy, plastic bags of groceries in your cart with the one crazy wheel that pulls maddeningly to the left, all the way out through the crowded, bumpy, littery parking lot, and then you have to drive all the way home through slow, heavy, SUV-intensive, rush-hour traffic, et cetera et cetera.
Everyone here has done this, of course. But it hasn’t yet been part of you graduates’ actual life routine, day after week after month after year.
But it will be. And many more dreary, annoying, seemingly meaningless routines besides. But that is not the point. The point is that petty, frustrating crap like this is exactly where the work of choosing is gonna come in. Because the traffic jams and crowded aisles and long checkout lines give me time to think, and if I don’t make a conscious decision about how to think and what to pay attention to, I’m gonna be pissed and miserable every time I have to shop. Because my natural default setting is the certainty that situations like this are really all about me. About MY hungriness and MY fatigue and MY desire to just get home, and it’s going to seem for all the world like everybody else is just in my way. And who are all these people in my way? And look at how repulsive most of them are, and how stupid and cow-like and dead-eyed and nonhuman they seem in the checkout line, or at how annoying and rude it is that people are talking loudly on cell phones in the middle of the line. And look at how deeply and personally unfair this is.
Or, of course, if I’m in a more socially conscious liberal arts form of my default setting, I can spend time in the end-of-the-day traffic being disgusted about all the huge, stupid, lane-blocking SUV’s and Hummers and V-12 pickup trucks, burning their wasteful, selfish, 40-gallon tanks of gas, and I can dwell on the fact that the patriotic or religious bumper-stickers always seem to be on the biggest, most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest [responding here to loud applause] — this is an example of how NOT to think, though — most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest, most inconsiderate and aggressive drivers. And I can think about how our children’s children will despise us for wasting all the future’s fuel, and probably screwing up the climate, and how spoiled and stupid and selfish and disgusting we all are, and how modern consumer society just sucks, and so forth and so on.
You get the idea.
If I choose to think this way in a store and on the freeway, fine. Lots of us do. Except thinking this way tends to be so easy and automatic that it doesn’t have to be a choice. It is my natural default setting. It’s the automatic way that I experience the boring, frustrating, crowded parts of adult life when I’m operating on the automatic, unconscious belief that I am the centre of the world, and that my immediate needs and feelings are what should determine the world’s priorities.
The thing is that, of course, there are totally different ways to think about these kinds of situations. In this traffic, all these vehicles stopped and idling in my way, it’s not impossible that some of these people in SUV’s have been in horrible auto accidents in the past, and now find driving so terrifying that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive. Or that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he’s trying to get this kid to the hospital, and he’s in a bigger, more legitimate hurry than I am: it is actually I who am in HIS way.
Or I can choose to force myself to consider the likelihood that everyone else in the supermarket’s checkout line is just as bored and frustrated as I am, and that some of these people probably have harder, more tedious and painful lives than I do.


Again, please don’t think that I’m giving you moral advice, or that I’m saying you are supposed to think this way, or that anyone expects you to just automatically do it. 

Because it’s hard

It takes will and effort, and if you are like me, some days you won’t be able to do it, or you just flat out won’t want to.

But most days, if you’re aware enough to give yourself a choice, you can choose to look differently at this fat, dead-eyed, over-made-up lady who just screamed at her kid in the checkout line. 

Maybe she’s not usually like this. 

Maybe she’s been up three straight nights holding the hand of a husband who is dying of bone cancer. 

Or maybe this very lady is the low-wage clerk at the motor vehicle department, who just yesterday helped your spouse resolve a horrific, infuriating, red-tape problem through some small act of bureaucratic kindness. 

Of course, none of this is likely, but it’s also not impossible

It just depends what you want to consider. 

If you’re automatically sure that you know what Reality is, and you are operating on your default setting, then you, like me, probably won’t consider possibilities that aren’t annoying and miserable. 
 
But if you really learn How to Pay Attention, then you will know there are other options. 
 
It will actually be Within Your Power to experience a crowded, hot, slow, consumer-hell type situation as not only meaningful, but sacred, on fire with the same force that made the stars: love, fellowship, the mystical oneness of all things deep down.
 
Not that that mystical stuff is necessarily True. The Only Thing that’s capital-T True is that 

You Get to Decide 
How You’re Gonna Try to See it.
 
This, I submit, is 
The Freedom of a Real Education, 
of Learning 
How to Be Well-Adjusted. 
 
You get to consciously decide 
What Has Meaning 
and 
What Doesn’t. 
 
You get to decide 
What to Worship.
 
Because here’s something else that’s Weird but True: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, 

There is actually no such thing as atheism

There is no such thing as not worshipping. 

Everybody worships

The only choice we get is what to worship. 

And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship–be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles–is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.
Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful, it’s that they’re unconscious. They are default settings.
They’re the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that’s what you’re doing.
And the so-called real world will not discourage you from operating on your default settings, because the so-called real world of men and money and power hums merrily along in a pool of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom all to be lords of our tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the centre of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talk about much in the great outside world of wanting and achieving…. The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day.
That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.
I know that this stuff probably doesn’t sound fun and breezy or grandly inspirational the way a commencement speech is supposed to sound. What it is, as far as I can see, is the capital-T Truth, with a whole lot of rhetorical niceties stripped away. You are, of course, free to think of it whatever you wish. But please don’t just dismiss it as just some finger-wagging Dr Laura sermon. None of this stuff is really about morality or religion or dogma or big fancy questions of life after death.
The capital-T Truth is about life BEFORE death.
It is about the real value of a real education, which has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over:

“This is water.”
“This is water.”

It is unimaginably hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out. 

Which means yet another grand cliché turns out to be true: your education really IS the job of a lifetime. And it commences: now.

I wish you way more than luck.