《这是水》：关于生命意义与现实困境的反思

大卫·福斯特·华莱士（David Foster Wallace）的经典演讲《这是水》和他最终的悲剧性自杀，为我们提供了一个深刻的机会，去反思生命的意义以及人类存在所面临的挑战。他对意识和选择的深刻洞察，与他最终的离世之间的矛盾，呈现了一幅复杂的图景：为何一个如此雄辩地倡导平凡生活中的意义的人，最终却屈服于绝望并被绝望所吞噬？

“水”：意识与选择

《这是水》采用了一个简单却深刻的比喻：鱼在水中游泳却未意识到水的存在。华莱士通过这一意象说明，人类常常对日常生活中最显而易见和最重要的事物视而不见。他指出，人类许多痛苦的根源在于我们默认的以自我为中心的设定，在这种设定下，我们把自己视为宇宙的中心，却无法认识到自己与他人经验之间的关联性。

在华莱士看来，教育的真正价值并不在于知识的积累，而在于学习如何有意识地选择思考什么以及如何解读这个世界。意识和视角是重新定义平凡生活意义的关键工具，比如在交通拥堵中等待，或是在超市排队时耗费时间。

华莱士的核心信息是，自由在于选择自己看待世界的方式，通过有意识地转变我们的关注点，可以将平凡转化为神圣，将挫折转化为同情。

抑郁与选择的矛盾

华莱士个人与抑郁症的斗争，为他的选择与意识哲学投下了阴影。尽管他在智力上掌握了寻找意义的工具，但他依然与一种压倒性的内心绝望作斗争，最终导致了他的自杀。这种悖论凸显了一个关键问题：意识与视角的转变，是否足以战胜精神疾病的重负？

与普通的生活挑战不同，抑郁症并不仅仅是调整视角的问题。它是一种全面的状态，模糊了判断，消耗了能量，扭曲了现实。对于像华莱士这样将整个人生哲学建立在选择与意识上的人来说，抑郁症可能被感知为一种对自身理想的背叛——一种剥夺选择能力的状态。

华莱士的悲剧性结局提醒我们，知识性的解决方案对于情感和心理问题的复杂性是有其局限的。尽管意识和选择是强大的工具，但它们并非万能药。心理健康需要的不仅仅是哲学洞察，还需要同情、联系，以及必要时的医疗介入。

对生命意义的反思：选择与接纳

华莱士的演讲和他的一生，揭示了人类存在的两个基本面向之间的紧张关系：主动建构意义的需求与接受生命不完美的必要性。他对有意识选择的呼吁令人深感共鸣，但他的个人挣扎提醒我们，即使是最深刻的洞见，也未必能使我们免于生活中黑暗现实的侵袭。

《这是水》的核心启示是，意识与选择是自由的形式。然而，华莱士的去世也提醒我们，接纳——接纳我们的局限、我们的痛苦以及生活中的混乱——同样至关重要。也许最终的教训是，选择与接纳都同样重要，二者结合才能帮助我们应对生命的复杂性。

最终，华莱士的作品挑战我们去观察自己生活中看不见的“水”，去主动选择我们的视角，并在日常生活中找到意义。同时，他的人生也促使我们正视心理健康问题，并强调在黑暗时刻寻求支持的重要性。他的遗产既是对意识的呼唤，也是对我们共同人性的提醒。

这是水
演讲稿：

各位家长们，大家好！祝贺肯尼恩学院（注：美国一所文理学院）2005届毕业生！

有两条年轻的鱼正在水中游泳，碰巧遇到一条朝相反方向游的老鱼，老鱼点了点头，对它们说：“早上好，伙计们，水怎么样啊？”两条年轻的鱼继续游了一会儿，其中一条鱼最终转头问另一条：“水是什么鬼？”

在美国的毕业典礼演讲中，讲点儿寓言式的小故事似乎是一种惯例。这种“讲故事”的形式确实比其他俗套的惯例要更好些，少了些无聊与虚假。但如果你担心我打算在这里把自己摆成那条睿智的老鱼，给你们这些年轻的鱼解释“水”是什么的话，请别担心，我并不是那条睿智的老鱼。这个鱼的故事的重点仅仅在于：那些最显而易见、最重要的现实，往往是最难被看到、也最难被谈论的。如果用英语写一句话来说，这无非是一个陈词滥调，但事实是，在成年人的日常生活中，这些陈词滥调可能关乎生死——至少，这是我想在这个干燥而美好的早晨向你们表达的观点。

当然，这类演讲的主要任务是让我谈谈你们博雅教育（liberal arts education）的意义，试图解释为什么你即将获得的这个学位不仅仅有物质上的回报，还具有真正的人性价值。所以，让我们来聊聊毕业典礼演讲中最常见的一个老套主题，那就是：博雅教育（liberal arts education）的意义不在于填满你的知识储备，而在于“教你如何思考”。如果你和我当学生时一样，你可能并不喜欢听到这句话，因为它让你感觉有点被冒犯，似乎暗示着你需要别人教你怎么思考。但我想告诉你们，这个博雅教育（liberal arts education）的老生常谈其实一点也不冒犯，因为真正重要的“如何思考”的教育并不是关于思考的能力，而是关于选择思考什么。如果你觉得关于选择思考什么的完全自由过于显而易见，不值得花时间讨论，那我建议你想想鱼和水，并且暂时抛开对这种显而易见的东西的怀疑。

下面是另一个寓言式的小故事：

两个男人在阿拉斯加偏远的荒野酒吧里坐着聊天，其中一个是宗教信徒，另一个是无神论者。他们正在激烈地争论上帝的存在——那种喝到第四瓶啤酒后特有的热烈辩论。无神论者说：“听着，不是说我没有理由不相信上帝。我也不是没尝试过信仰上帝和祈祷。就在上个月，我在一场可怕的暴风雪中迷路了，完全看不见方向，气温低到零下50度。我想我会死掉，所以我跪在雪地里哭喊：‘哦，上帝，如果真有上帝的话，我迷失在这场暴风雪中，如果你不帮我，我就会死！’”

现在，在酒吧里，宗教信徒听了这话，一脸困惑地对无神论者说：“那你现在应该相信了吧？毕竟，你还活着。”无神论者翻了个白眼，说：“不，老兄，我得救只是因为恰好有两个爱斯基摩人路过，把我带回了营地。”

这个故事很容易用一种标准的博雅教育（liberal arts education）方式来分析：相同的经历对不同的人来说，可以因其不同的信念模板和意义建构方式而有完全不同的意义。我们珍视宽容和多样性的信念，因此在这种博雅教育（liberal arts education）的分析中，我们不会去断言一个人的解释是真实的，而另一个人的解释是错误或糟糕的。这没问题，但问题是，我们也从来没有去讨论这些个人的信念模板和价值观究竟来自哪里——它们是如何从这两个人的内心深处发展出来的。仿佛一个人的最基本的世界观和经历的意义就像身高或鞋码一样天生固有，或者像语言一样自动从文化中吸收。仿佛我们如何建构意义并不是一种个人的、有意的选择。

然而，问题的关键在于：这种盲目的确定性——无论是信徒还是无神论者的——会让人完全被束缚住，甚至意识不到自己被困住了。

所以，我认为，所谓“教你如何思考”，部分意义在于教我们变得稍微少一点自大，对自己和自己的确定性多一点批判意识。因为我通常会自动确信的大部分东西，最终证明是完全错误或被误导的。我是通过惨痛的教训学到这一点的，我预测你们这些毕业生们也会有类似的经历。

我想举一个例子，说明我们天生的默认设定是多么错误：在我的直接经验中，一切都支持这样一种深刻的信念——我是宇宙的绝对中心；我是世上最真实、最生动、最重要的人。我们很少去思考这种自然的、自我中心的倾向，因为它在社会上太令人反感了。但这种倾向在我们所有人身上几乎是一种默认设置，从出生时就深深地嵌入了我们的认知模式中。

想一想：你经历的所有事，都是围绕你展开的。世界以你为中心，无论是在你的前方、后方，左边、右边，在你的电视屏幕上，还是你的电脑显示器上。一切都以你为核心而存在。至于其他人的想法和感受，则必须以某种方式传达给你；而你的想法和感受却是如此直接、紧迫和真实。

请放心，我并不是要讲一场关于同情心或利他主义或者所谓美德的说教。这里不是在讨论美德，而是关于一种选择：选择做出努力，从某种方式中挣脱出来，摆脱天生的“以自我为中心”的默认设定，停止用这种视角去看待和解释一切。那些能够调整这种默认设定的人，通常被称为“适应良好的人”。我认为，这并非偶然。

在这样一个学术性的场景下，一个显而易见的问题是：调整默认设定这种工作到底与知识或智力有多大的关系？这个问题很棘手。也许学术教育最危险的一点——至少对我而言——就是它会助长我过度理性化的倾向，让我迷失在脑海里的抽象论证中，而不是简单地关注眼前发生的事情，或者关注内心正在发生的感受。

你们现在肯定知道，要保持警觉和专注是极其困难的，而不是被自己脑海中永不停息的独白催眠（可能这会正在发生）。在我毕业20年后，我逐渐理解了博雅教育（liberal arts education）中“教你如何思考”这个陈词滥调，其实是一个更深刻、更严肃的想法的简化表述：学习如何思考，真正意味着学习如何控制自己的思考方式和内容。这意味着你要有足够的意识，去选择你关注什么，以及选择如何从经验中构建意义。因为如果你在成年生活中无法行使这种选择权，你会变得一团糟。想想那句老话：“头脑是一个出色的仆人，但却是一个糟糕的主人。”

这句话和很多陈词滥调一样，表面看起来平庸无趣，但其实揭示了一个伟大而深刻的真理。这并非偶然：那些用枪自杀的成年人几乎总是把枪对准他们的头部。他们射向了那个糟糕的主人。而真相是，这些自杀者在扣动扳机之前早已“死去”了。

而我想说，这正是博雅教育（liberal arts education）真正的价值所在——不是那些表面上的虚话，而是真正有意义的价值：教你如何在平凡、富足、受人尊敬的成年生活中，避免成为一个死去的、无意识的、被自己的头脑和天生默认设定奴役的人，每天过着孤独的帝王般的生活。

这听起来可能有些夸张，或者像是抽象的废话。那么让我们更具体一些。简单的事实是，你们这些毕业生还没有真正意识到“日复一日”的含义。在成人的美国生活中，有一大部分内容从来不会在毕业演讲中被谈及。其中一个部分就是无聊、例行公事和琐碎的挫折感。这里的父母和年长者们对此一定深有体会。

举个例子，假设这是一个普通的工作日。你早上起床，去从事一份具有挑战性的白领工作，工作了八到十个小时，结束时你感到疲惫而有些压力，只想回家吃顿好饭，或许放松一小时，然后早早上床睡觉，因为第二天你还得重复这一天的一切。但你突然想起来，家里没有食物了。这一周你因为工作忙，根本没有时间去买菜。因此下班后，你得开车去超市。

这是下班高峰期，交通可能会很糟糕。到超市的路上花了比平常更长的时间。当你终于到达超市时，发现那里非常拥挤，因为所有和你一样的上班族也都挤在这段时间买菜。超市灯光刺眼，播放着让人灵魂枯萎的背景音乐，几乎是你最不想去的地方。但你不能快速地进去然后迅速离开，因为你得在这巨大而灯光耀眼的超市里四处寻找你需要的东西，还得推着一个破破烂烂的购物车，在一群同样疲惫而匆忙的人中穿行（诸如此类）。最后你终于买齐了晚餐的食材，但发现收银台开的太少，而结账队伍又长得可怕，这让人既愤怒又无奈。但你不能把挫败感发泄在收银员身上，那是一位拼命工作、日复一日忍受着超乎我们想象的单调和无意义工作的女士。

总之，你终于结完账，被告知“祝你有美好的一天”，但声音中却充满了绝望。然后，你不得不将那些可疑的、易破的塑料袋装满购物车，并推着那辆带着“疯轮子”的车穿过拥挤而坑洼的停车场，回到你的车上，再顶着慢如蜗牛的交通回家。如此种种。

每个人都经历过这种事情，当然。但对于你们这些毕业生来说，这还没有成为你们实际生活中的常规——日复一日、一周接一周、一年又一年地重复。

但这种事情终究会成为你们生活的一部分。还有许多像这样单调、烦人、看似毫无意义的日常琐事。然而，这并不是重点。重点是，这种琐碎的、令人沮丧的事情正是选择的时刻出现的地方。因为交通拥堵、拥挤的通道和漫长的结账队伍会给我时间去思考，而如果我不主动选择如何思考和关注什么，那么每次购物我都会感到愤怒和痛苦。因为我的默认设定会让我确信，这种情况全都与我有关。我的饥饿、我的疲劳、我只想回家的愿望，而其他人似乎都在挡我的路。这些人是谁？看看他们有多讨厌，多愚蠢，多像一群没有生气的行尸走肉，他们的眼神空洞、毫无生气，像动物一样站在结账队伍中。而那些在队伍中用手机大声说话的人，简直让人觉得无礼又令人厌烦。看看这些情况有多不公平、多个人化。

当然，如果我切换到更“社会意识”的博雅教育（liberal arts education）版本的默认设定，我可能会在下班高峰的交通中想着那些又大又蠢、挡路的SUV和悍马，以及那些烧着巨大油箱的车，它们是多么浪费、多么自私。我可能会想着，那些贴着爱国或宗教车贴的大型车通常是最自私、最可恶的车，而这些车的司机往往也是最丑陋、最自私和最不考虑他人的人。然后我可能会想到，我们的子孙后代会怎么看待我们这些人，因为我们浪费了他们的燃料，可能还破坏了气候。我会想着现代消费社会是多么糟糕，诸如此类。

你明白我的意思了吧？

如果我选择以这种方式思考超市或交通问题，那也无妨。很多人确实这么想。但这种思考方式太容易、太自动化了，以至于它不需要是一个有意识的选择。这是我的默认设定。这是我在体验无聊、令人沮丧和拥挤的成人生活中，自然而然的体验方式——基于一种无意识的信念，那就是我是世界的中心，我的需求和感受应该决定这个世界的优先事项。

但实际上，这种情况可以用完全不同的方式来思考。在交通拥堵中，这些停着的车、在我面前无动于衷的车群中，也许有些人因为之前发生过严重车祸，开车对他们来说是一种极大的恐惧感，而他们的心理医生几乎下令让他们必须买一辆又大又重的SUV来获得足够的安全感，才能让他们开车。或者，刚刚切我车道的那辆悍马，也许是一位父亲在开车，他的小孩坐在副驾驶，身体受了伤或生病，他正急着带孩子去医院，而他的紧迫性比我的更高——也许是我挡了他的路。

或者我可以强迫自己考虑一个可能性：超市结账队伍中的每一个人，也许都和我一样无聊和沮丧，而其中一些人可能过着比我更艰难、更单调、更痛苦的生活。

再强调一遍，请不要以为我在对你们进行道德说教，也不要以为我是在说你们应该以这样的方式思考，或者别人期望你们自然会这么做。因为这种方式很难做到。它需要意志力和努力。如果你们和我一样，有些日子你们会无法做到，或者你根本就不想去做。

但是，大多数日子里，如果你有足够的觉察，你可以选择不同地看待这个在结账队伍中冲孩子大吼的、臃肿、眼神空洞、化着过度妆容的女人。也许她平时并不是这样的。也许她已经连续三晚没合眼，一直在陪伴她身患骨癌的丈夫。或者，也许这个女人正是昨天在车辆管理部门的低薪办事员，通过一点点的体贴与善意，帮助你伴侣解决了一个可怕、令人愤怒的繁琐问题。

当然，这些可能性都不太可能，但也并非完全不可能。只是看你愿不愿意去考虑。如果你对现实的理解是自动的、确定的，并且始终按照默认设定运行，那么你很可能像我一样，不会去考虑那些不令人厌烦、不令人痛苦的可能性。但如果你真正学会了如何留意，就会知道，还有其他的选择。这种选择能让你在炎热、拥挤、缓慢、消费地狱般的情境中，发现不仅有意义，甚至可能是神圣的——充满着那种创造了星辰的力量：爱、友情、以及万物深处的神秘合一。

不过，那种神秘的东西不一定是真实的。唯一“真正真实”的东西是，你可以决定自己如何尝试去看待这一切。

这就是我想说的，真正自由的教育的意义所在：学习如何调整自我，学习如何思考。你可以有意识地决定什么有意义，什么没有意义。你可以决定崇拜什么。

因为还有一件事情很奇怪，但却是真的：在成年生活的日复一日中，其实并不存在无神论。没有人不崇拜。唯一的选择是，你选择崇拜什么。而选择某种神性或灵性作为崇拜的理由——无论是耶稣基督、安拉、耶和华、女巫教母神、四圣谛，还是某种不可侵犯的伦理原则——是因为其他任何你崇拜的东西，都会慢慢吞噬你。

如果你崇拜金钱和物质，那么你永远不会觉得够多，永远会觉得自己不够多。这是事实。如果你崇拜自己的身体、外貌和性吸引力，那么你永远会觉得自己丑陋。当岁月开始显现痕迹时，你会在内心经历无数次死亡，直到它们真正让你崩溃。我们在某种程度上都知道这些道理。它们被浓缩在神话、谚语、陈词滥调、警句和寓言中——每个伟大故事的骨架。关键在于，如何将这些真理始终保持在日常意识的最前线。

崇拜权力，你会最终感到自己软弱和恐惧，你会需要越来越多的对他人的控制，才能麻痹自己对恐惧的感知。崇拜你的智慧，被看作聪明，你会最终觉得自己愚蠢，觉得自己是个冒牌货，总是在害怕被揭穿的边缘。

但这些崇拜形式的可怕之处，并不是因为它们“邪恶”或“有罪”。而是它们是无意识的。它们是默认设置。

它们是那种你一天一天不知不觉滑入的崇拜方式，越来越挑剔你所看到的东西以及如何衡量价值，而你却从未完全意识到自己在做什么。

所谓的真实世界不会阻止你按照默认设定运行，因为这个真实世界——关于金钱和权力的世界——在恐惧、愤怒、挫败和渴望中自如地运转着，完全服务于自我崇拜。我们的当代文化以这种方式运用了这些力量，从而产生了非凡的财富、舒适和个人自由。自由让每个人都成为自己小小头颅王国的君王，独自站在所有创造的中心。这种自由有许多值得称赞的地方。但当然，自由有各种各样的形式，而最珍贵的那种自由却很少在外面的功利世界里被谈论。

真正重要的自由涉及注意力、觉察和自律，以及能够真正关心他人，为他们一次又一次地、每天在无数琐碎、不吸引人的方式中做出牺牲。

这才是真正的自由。这才是受教育的意义所在，这才是理解如何思考的真谛。另一种选择则是无意识、默认设定、鼠辈赛跑，以及那种不断啃噬心灵的感觉——一种失去某种无限珍贵之物的感觉。

我知道，这些东西可能听起来既不轻松愉快，也没有毕业演讲通常应有的那种宏伟启迪感。但我能看到的是，这是真理，是真理的大写“T”，而其中大部分修辞上的华丽被剥离了。你当然可以随心所欲地看待它，但请不要简单地把它当作某种说教或训斥。

这些话与道德、宗教、教条或关于死后生活的大问题毫无关系。

这个大写的“真理”是关于死前的生活。

它是关于真实教育的真正价值，这几乎与知识毫无关系，却与简单的觉察息息相关——觉察到什么是真正的现实与本质，它无处不在，隐藏在显而易见的地方。我们需要一次又一次地提醒自己：

“这是水。”

“这是水。”

在成年世界的日复一日中保持这种觉察和清醒，是难以想象的挑战。

这意味着，另一个伟大的陈词滥调也是真的：你的教育确实是一生的工作。而它从现在开始。

我祝愿你们的，不只是好运。

《无尽的玩笑》

预言21世纪人类精神困境的

旷世奇书‍

感受下动态的封面，体验无限沉迷其中...

《无尽的玩笑》

[英]大卫·福斯特·华莱士 著

俞冰夏 译

上海人民出版社·世纪文景

图书简介

这是一个物质高度发达的年代，人们的娱乐需求不断产生又不断得到满足。一部名为《无尽的玩笑》的神秘电影在地下流传，所有看过它的人都沉迷其中无法自拔，它的致命吸引力将一所网球学校、一家戒瘾康复机构、加拿大分离组织以及美国情报部门都卷入其中，灾难一触即发……

《无尽的玩笑》的出版堪称一个事件，一座无法被超越的高峰。全书100万字，没有章节，没有目录，片段之间被神秘符号隔开。这是一部有着自己的大脑和心脏的小说，大卫·福斯特·华莱士挥洒他天才的语言，巧妙构建挑战读者智商的故事结构，于无限放大的细节中，制造出席卷现实与人物内心的连绵不绝的风暴。书中描写的对各种事物沉迷又陷入无尽孤独的群体病症，指向了这个成瘾时代，也将给这个时代的读者带来思考和慰藉。

作者简介

大卫·福斯特·华莱士（David Foster Wallace, 1962—2008）美国作家，出生于纽约州伊萨卡市，在中西部地区长大。父亲是哲学教授，母亲是英语教授，他们会互相给对方读《尤利西斯》，给幼年的华莱士和他妹妹读《白鲸》，在家庭环境的熏陶下，华莱士自幼就对语言及写作充满兴趣。少年时热衷于网球运动，进入大学后专心研究数学逻辑和语义学，1985年以优异成绩毕业于阿默斯特学院，获哲学和英语双学位，毕业论文之一是他的小说处女作《系统的扫帚》。1987年获亚利桑那大学艺术硕士学位，后入哈佛大学攻读哲学博士学位，但因健康原因中途放弃。

1996年出版《无尽的玩笑》，上市一个月内即加印6次，至今畅销不衰。1993 年至 2002年间在伊利诺伊大学任英语副教授，2002年开始在加州波莫纳学院教授创意写作。2008年，在与抑郁症做了多年抗争后，华莱士选择终结自己的生命。2011年，遗作《苍白的国王》由其家人和编辑整理出版，入围普利策奖。虚构作品之外，华莱士曾为多家杂志撰写报道及人物采访稿，有《想想龙虾》《一件应该有趣而我不会再做的事》等非虚构作品结集出版。

This is Water 

Transcript:

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. 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.