I’d worked out how to quit for good, if I wanted to: steep taper, seven day timetable, plenty of loperamide; magnesium supplements and free form amino acids to replenish my burnt-out neurotransmitters; protein powder, electrolyte powder, melatonin (and weed) for sleep as well as various herbal tinctures and potions my fashion intern swore by, licorice root and milk thistle, nettles and hops and black cumin seed oil, valerian root and skullcap extract. I had a shopping bag from the health food store with all the stuff I needed, which had been sitting on the floor at the back of my closet for a year and a half. All of it was mostly untouched except the weed, which was long gone. The problem (as I’d learned, repeatedly) was that thirty-six hours in, with your body in full revolt, and the remainder of your un-opiated life stretching out bleakly ahead of you like a prison corridor, you needed some fairly compelling reason to keep moving forward into darkness, rather than falling straight back into the gorgeous feather mattress you’d so foolishly abandoned.
[...]Whatever reason I’d had for storing the painting all those years ago—for keeping it in the first place—for taking it out of the museum even—I now couldn’t remember. Time had blurred it. It was part of a world that didn’t exist—or, rather, it was as if I lived in two worlds, and the storage locker was part of the imaginary world rather than the real one. It was easy to forget about the storage locker, to pretend it wasn’t there; I’d half expected to open it to find the painting gone, although I knew it wouldn’t be, it would still be shut away in the dark and waiting for me forever as long as I left it there, like the body of a person I’d murdered and stuck in a cellar somewhere.
“Right,” I said politely, going into the kitchen and pouring myself a huge vodka. [...]
this is in response to an annoying guy talking about his kid ... i feel like the punchline could be a little more subtle. like instead of a huge vodka, something a little more comical and deadpan. refilled my water glass with straight vodka or something. dont put the 'huge' part in front of the punchline etc
“I—” Platt goggled at me. “Kitsey.” He seemed rattled. He dug his hands in the bellows pockets of his field coat. “She’s been held up,” he said to his mother.
Mrs. Barbour looked startled. “Oh,” she said. They looked at each other and some unspoken something seemed to pass between them.
“Held up?” I asked amiably, looking between them. “Where?”
There was no answer to this. Platt—gaze fixed on his mother—opened his mouth and shut it. Rather smoothly, Mrs. Barbour put her book aside and said, without looking at me: “Well, you know, I slightly think she’s out there playing golf today.”
“Really?” I said, mildly surprised. “Isn’t it bad weather for that?”
“There’s traffic,” Platt said eagerly, with a glance at his mother. “She’s stuck. The expressway is a mess. She’s phoned Forrest,” he said, turning to me, “they’re holding dinner.”
rough. i dont totally believe the narration here (it's both knowing and clueless at the sametime ... neiher one nor the other) but i do like that it's still hidden from him at this point
It's tempting to read this moment of disappointment, this moment when worship fails and transcendence collapses back into distraction, as cause for either condemnation or vindication. As grounds for condemnation, the moment of disappointment can be taken as more good evidence that the religious project is pointless. Worship doesn't work. It never has before and now, despite whatever local heights you may have reached, it has definitely failed again. But the opposite verdict is also possible. This disappointment can be read as a vindication of religion, as good evidence that worshiping anything other than the one true God will cannibalize you every time. You weren't wrong to worship, you just aimed at the wrong thing. Pick the right thing next time. The failure of a false god vindicates your hunger for the true one.
This polemic can go either way but, in the end, both readings seem thin. They both think worship is about finding an object that won't disappoint. And as polemic, they both miss something vital about the character of this disappointment, about the curvature of the arc that worship describes. Cribbing from David Foster Wallace, this book argues for a third reading. This third way doesn't see the moment of disappointment as a failure of religion or as a failure to be religious. Rather, it reads the moment of disappointment as pivotal to the character of worship. It reads this failure of transcendence as a feature (not a bug) of religion itself. In fact, it holds that one main goal of religion is to induce this disappointment.
This third reading offers a contemporary version of a very old religious idea. This old idea has the shape of a paradox: to save God you must lose God. This idea claims that there is a moment of inversion at the heart of worship, a twist in the loop of transcenderce that renders it, Möbius-like, continuous with immanence. This twist joins both sides—transcendence and immanence—as a single surface. If, with dogged persistence, you rise along the the line of transcendence you will reach a point of inversion in your ascent that will, without ceremony or explanation, return you to immanence. This homecoming will hurt a bit. It will feel like failure. It will disappoint.
[...] This sadness [...] threatens to obscure the urgent revelation at the heart of your loss: the revelation that the end of worship was, all along, immanence and that, though your head may invent a thousand ways of escaping this world, the point of religion is to return you to it.
There are two elements at play in worship: the aiming at the aimed at. The aiming itself is hungry but unstable. The aimed at is nameable but evasive. Invested by your aiming with the hope of satisfaction, with the hope of escape and transcendence, the aimed at becomes an idol. [...]
But, again, your idol can't meet this expectation. No idol can. The hope that it could is a mirage. And when that idol fails--when it disappoints your aiming and shows itself without transcendence: immanent, disheveled, disenchanted--there will be a moment, perhaps quite brief, when all that remains of worship is a pang of raw aiming. This moment when it looks like your worship has failed is the religious moment. This is the revelation. This moment allows the aiming itself to appear. And it is in the aiming itself, not in the object aimed at, that God is most clearly manifest. This is the epiphany. [...]
the quote comprises most of the chapter tbh but i thought it was really really good, even if we clearly have different conceptions of what "God" means
[...] the more time you spend stuck in your head, ignoring the world, hungry for transcendence and distraction, the more superficial your life becomes. [...]
[...] when life starts to feel insubstantial, you may be tempted to abuse substances. Wallace hints at this connection between feeling insubstantial and the abuse of substances by consistently writing "Substance abuse" with a capital "S". He does so because part of what's at stake in substance abuse is a hunger for some uppercase Substance that could, for once, satisfy desire and appease the head's hunger for transcendence.
But this hunger for some final Substance is a dead end. You can't get rid of it. [...]
though Miller doesn't mention it in this chapter, this relates to SFT's desire to get all the pampering out of one's system, etc
[...] Desire naturally assumes that its own intensity is strong evidence for the existence of a correspondingly intense satisfaction. Desire assumes some correlative Substance. It invests its idol with the promise of release. But there is no such substance. [...] Desires wants to desire. It blindly wants, more than anything else, its own perpetuation. Nothing will satisfy it. [...] Desire is adaptive. No matter how great the success, its intensity is easily and upwardly adjustable. Success is no Substance. [...]
[...] Achievement can be more dangerous than failure. At least failure leaves you with the fantasy of some uppercase Substance. But imagine what happens when "you attain the goal and realize the shocking realization that attaining the goal does not complete or redeem you, does not make everything for your life 'OK' as you are, in the culture, educated to assume" (IJ 680). [...]
on the Enfield Tennis Academy in IJ, and the counselors they hire to prepare kids for success
[...] These are the gods we worship: whatever coincidental Substances might promise perfect release. God has himself regularly been conceived along these lines. And the heavens where he resides have often been described as a finally satisfying place reachable only by way of death. [...]
a searing indictment of believing in heaven. I suppose Miller is a Christian who doesn't believe in heaven? or maybe he's just working on it