Writing Our Own Ending

I have read two books lately about old people, dementia sufferers, who make the decision to go to Switzerland for assisted suicide.  One was the memoir In Love by Amy Bloom about her last weeks with her husband, and the other was the novel Switzy by Emily Cline.

Bloom’s husband Brian Ameche was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in his 60s and swiftly decided that this was not a situation he wanted to ride out to the end. “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees” states this former football player. He convinces his wife; they look for a way. But in this country, voluntary exit is not one of our freedoms.  The only viable alternative they found was self-starvation, and neither thought they had the patience or heart for that.  (For a memoir about a sane person (at 100) using the starvation method, please look at Helen Nearing’s Loving and Leaving the Good Life.)

Going to Switzerland is not a poor man’s solution.  Even this upper middle-class couple has to borrow money to pull it off, but they are resolute.  Bloom is so determined to do this for her husband that it is uncomfortable at times, she seems somewhat too forceful.  Then you remember that this is what he wants; she is giving him one last great gift.  Ameche is depicted mostly by his own words.  We feel his losses, his confusions, his determination, and his grief.  It all rings true.

Emily Cline has the disadvantage of being a young woman writing about an old man.  This old man, David Hastings, is alone, but privileged – someone has paid an escort to take him to Switzerland, on a trip where he will see a daughter and old friend along the way, while not divulging to them his real mission.  He gets confused, but then muses intellectually over his forgetfulness.  We are in his head, but it does not seem real.  He is too self-conscious.  When my mother was in the throes of dementia, she never questioned herself.  I know every experience varies, but his does not ring true. For example, David muses about communications satellites:

Interesting, to be here on Earth at a time when we had put the sky to work.  Pretty much what we’d want from God, wasn’t it – finally we’d roped the stars into our human affairs.  Pressed them into our service.  Thanks for everything, heaven – now tell me where the next turn is.

David can’t remember where his phone is, but addresses the heavens in this wise way?  There are surely moments of clarity within dementia, but Cline supplies them as constant intermissions in David’s struggle to remember where and who he is.  David’s mind drifts, points of view shift recklessly, and some of the sentiments are wise. But, in the end, this does not sound like the consciousness of a demented mind.

Suicide in old age is a hard topic.  My mother belonged to the Hemlock Society when she was young and cheered Dr. Kevorkian on, but when her brain started to close down in her eighties there was never any indication that she wanted to do anything but muster on.  Of course, there is a small window (think of Still Alice) between the point where we are rational enough to choose death and when we are beyond such choice, both legally (not of sane mind) and physically (can’t handle the logistics). Stoics saw suicide as the ever-present and comforting “open door.”  Camus said that “there was only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.”  But, even Camus concluded that – as absurd as life can be – we were probably better off making terms with it.

When I began writing this blog entry, “Writing Our Own Ending” was a provisional title, but as I progressed, I realized that “writing our own ending” is a good description for all the choices that we make in old age.  We didn’t get to write the chapter of our childhood – we were not in control.  Adolescence and young adulthood seemed to be in the control of our hormones.  And then life caught up with us – babies, jobs, marriage, divorce, illness – and only in retirement (and sometimes not even then – think of grandparents impelled to take custody of grandchildren) do we have a real shot at choosing how we live – assuming, of course, that we have at least a bare minimum to keep us fed and housed.  It is a wonderful opportunity.  Elders in India used to “go forth” to the forest for contemplation, some medieval aristocrats went to the monastery or convent.  In any case it should be a conscious choice.  And then, at the end of it, we should be able to decide how to die.  This does not necessarily mean suicide; it means a conscious choice if we are capable, and a pain-free death if we are not.

The best fictional depiction I have ever read of dementia was Out of Mind by the Dutch author J. Bernlef.  Hard to find, but worth it.

I have written about dementia many times.  As I get older and have more and more “senior moments,” I am getting a better sense of how it might feel.  How to live a diminished life.  But, mostly, I want to write my own ending as much as is possible.  We’ll see.

AI and Utopia – An Old Folks’ View

Advocates of AI often talk about the utopia this new technology will bring about – no more drudgery at the office or factory, no more housework or financial planning, no more medical conundrums.  When experts are asked how people will fare in the face of having nothing to do, you get something like this exchange between Nick Bostrom, a philosopher who recently published a book called Deep Utopia, and Spencer Klavan, a classics scholar and podcast host:

Bostrom: You could have the A.I.s and the robots doing basically all economically productive tasks.  You then have a leisure society where there is no longer any need for humans to work…. It would obviously require some cultural transformation and adaptation.  But ultimately, I think we could easily imagine living in such a world.

There are already various groups of people that don’t work for a living that you could look to for inspiration.  Young children don’t work for a living.  They seem to have a good life…

Klavan:  It depends if you aspire to live like children.

Bostrom:  Then we have retired people…. They go around traveling, spend time with their grandchildren.  They have hobbies.  They watch movies.  They golf.

So we elders have become the models for AI utopia.  To boot, all our infirmities will be cured by AI so we will live much longer, giving us many more utopian years of watching movies, seeing the world, and playing with the next generation of great-grandchildren (who will probably prefer their robo-nannies?).  I have lots of questions.

Who is going to pay for all this?  Companies who are investing in AI so that they can reduce wages are not about to foot the bill for us all to go golfing, are they?  And, whatever kind of income we might have for the very, very long retirement that AI longevity will provide for us, will we have enough money to pay for cruises?  We already do not have enough younger workers to support Social Security, and I very much doubt that robots will contribute to either Social Security or Medicare since they won’t be earning anything.

But even if all the rest of it worked out, what kind of world would we have?  This generation is not the first to worry over this problem.  Competing utopian narratives in the nineteenth century either had technology actually giving us something like utopia (think Bellamy’s Looking Backward) or creating worlds where technology had had to be banned to make life livable (Butler’s Erewhon or Morris’s News from Nowhere).

The twentieth century longshoreman and homespun philosopher, Eric Hoffer, addressed the problem about the end of work after he saw how new machinery handled the large rolls of newsprint that used to require great strength and skill by the dockworkers.  He labeled the problem “automation” and wrote a notable essay about it in his book The Temper of Our Time, Hoffer talks about creating big universities of a sort for people who don’t have to work to give them projects and purpose.  Hoffer was an autodidact himself, so this was his idea of utopia.  One could do worse.

But what if what you do really has no purpose?  Mathematicians are surely pondering this now that AI has blown up the profession, but we should all be thinking about it.  What if AI can shop for us better than we can shop for ourselves and produce hand-crafted furniture quicker and better than we possibly could?  I still knit hats and sweaters even though the finished products surely cost more and take more time than what I would find on sale on the internet.  And what will we do if we have even more time?  We know that we will never play chess or Go as well a machine – so are we just pretending?  Does that make these things games within games?  Ezra Klein warns: “That a machine can beat a chess grandmaster has not meant the end of human beings playing chess. But humanity’s sense of purpose and control and primacy is a harder and more ineffable thing to replace.”

I like games.  Every day I do five of the NY Times puzzles and occasionally enjoy a game of cards.   It is fun to test our skills and distract ourselves temporarily from the mundane problems of a life.  Games make exercise more enjoyable and are a sociable way to spend time with others.  But what does it mean if all of life is a game?  Here’s one problem with games – they are simply a way of killing time.  Isn’t time too precious to kill?  Is this what we want?  But, if everything else is taken away, what else is there?

Does it make a difference what kind of games we play?  In his remarkable book, Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse differentiates between finite games, where the goal is to win, and infinite games, where the goal is to keep the game going forever.  For instance, if the goal (as in Monopoly) is to amass the most wealth, we might cut down the forests.  But if the goal is to keep our world going forever, it would be part of the game to save the forests.  And perhaps we would be wondering what kind of game AI is playing and thinking seriously about whether the rules of an infinite game would allow for AI.

But I resist calling life a game, and if the pundits are looking to retired people for models of how to live when we don’t have to work, maybe we should think very closely about what the utopia of our retirement is or should be.  As Jeanette Winterson says: “the question ‘How shall I live?’ is fierce.”

In 1976, when Hoffer was about 74, he published a series of short essays called In Our Time. Having witnessed the turmoil of the sixties, he thinks we have learned something:

And we have grown wiser.  We now know that affluence is a threat to social stability; that the adult’s failure of nerve is more critical than the young’s impulse toward anarchy; that righting wrongs is a perilous undertaking which needs a tightening of social discipline; that a sense of usefulness is more vital to the quality of life than abundance or even freedom.

A sense of usefulness is more vital to the quality of life than abundance or even freedom. Think about it.

I have written about games and utopias frequently.  If you are interested, you might look at “Retirement as Utopia” or “Huxley’s Last Utopia.”

 

Late Style – Two Approaches to Aging

There are basically two approaches to aging.  The first seeks a deep acceptance of the changes wrought by decay and death; the other prizes fighting until the end.  I think you know which camp I am in, but I have had reason to examine this topic again recently, both in relation to myself and to the larger world.

In his posthumous book, On Late Style, Edward Said differentiates between two artistic approaches at the end of creative lives.  He proposes that one group of aging literary and musical artists reflects “a new spirit of reconciliation and serenity often expressed in terms of miraculous transformation of common reality;” he puts the Shakespeare of the late romances and the Sophocles of Oedipus at Colonus in this category.  However, Said is more interested in those creative minds that struggle with the “intransigence, difficulty, and unresolved contradiction” of “age and ill health.”  He references Beethoven (I disagree with him on this) and Ibsen as artists who “fight until the end.”  One might think of Dylan Thomas’s “Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night.”  There is an article in last week’s NYTimes magazine written by a woman whose father rushed through his last months and last dime trying every new treatment, leaving no chance to say goodbye or to experience the end of his life.

In the same year (2006) that Said’s book was published, David Galenson published a classic account of old age and genius.  Old Masters and Young Geniuses divides artists into conceptual geniuses who do innovative work early, and experimentalists, whose best work is the product of the slow accretion of learning, experience, and reflection, and often occurs in the later years.

If we continue to struggle, when will we have time for the reflection and “the slow accretion of learning”?  Do we really want to heed Dylan Thomas in his exhortation to combat the inevitable?  Do we want the screaming and resistant death of Tolstoy’s Ivan Illich, the bitter death of Eliot’s Peter Featherstone – or the serene death of Alcott’s Beth March, Cather’s Archbishop?  I know which one I would choose.

But even if we choose a peaceful old age, it is not easy in our culture.  Capitalism sees no profit in a serene old age.  There is more money in sending old folks out on pilgrimages to the fountain of youth – hawking cosmetics, plastic surgery, cruises, lifestyle “enhancements.”  In theory, technology should be the best friend of elders, allowing them to shop, listen to music, order books from the library – even when driving is no longer possible.  However, the internet is a capitalist production these days and even what it is good in it (think Wikipedia) has been co-opted to feed the AI engines.

As usual, we can be our own worst enemy.  New retirees often feel the need to excel at something to get back the respect (situational though it might have been) that they had in the office.  They want to write their first book and they want it to be a bestseller.  They take up art and enter juried shows with their first watercolors.  That is all fine if you can step back and realize what is going on.  I had a friend who fell into this pit so often that she posted a reminder on the top of her computer screen: “You’ve already done that.”

I have recently been reading The Disappearance of Rituals by the philosopher Byung-Chul Han.  It is the first of his books that I have read, but it won’t be the last.  I recommend this slim volume.  I don’t always think that Han is right, but he definitely gets me thinking.  In any case, he talks about the old systems of narrative (religious stories, heroic sagas, legends) with endings.  Capitalism wants no closure – there is always another way to spend your money.  A sense of endings gives way to what Han calls the “endless conjunction [and].” Capitalism thinks we always need one more thing.  Rituals are stopping places:

Rituals give form to the essential transitions of life.  They are forms of closure.  Without them, we slip through.  Thus, we age without growing old, or we remain infantile consumers who never become adults.  The discontinuity of autonomous time gives way to the continuity of production and consumption.

I am not trying to tell anyone how to handle their own old age, but I am cautioning all of us to think about it consciously.  As one who plowed through her childhood and young adulthood with more energy than consciousness, I know that I want to carefully consider how to spend the time left to me.  It is hard to battle the latest cruise ad, bestseller list, fashion, or medical fad.  I have written both a story and a blog about someone who determined on “nothing new” in their old age.  No reading new books, no going new places, replacement purchases only.  It is not a prescription for life, but it is a worthwhile exercise.  (Ann Patchett tried it and wrote about the results here.)  But, again, there are at least two ways to spend our waning days.  Let’s at least choose somewhat deliberately.

Even if we believe in wringing the last drop out of life, we should consider how to do that.  I think of Thoreau:

…nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion. (Walden)

Lastly, it often seems like our world, our culture, is in its old age, even in its death throes.  And it is fighting against it, although not in any logical way.  It is fighting for oil, for supreme intelligence, for control, for the way it used to be – and the fires rage, the coral dies, and there is constant action but no real progress, and surely no peace.  Just a thought.

 

 

 

 

Ways to Parse Our Lives

As I am writing this, it is the Autumnal Equinox, that moment when day and night are the same length, a pause in the steady progression to shorter and shorter days and the long night of the Winter Solstice.  One metaphor that poets and philosophers have used for our life journey is that of the seasons – Spring for youth, Summer for adulthood, Fall for aging, and Winter for the end of life.  Poets like these metaphors.  I think of Chesterton’s “Gold Leaves”:

In youth I sought the golden flower

Hidden in wood or wold,

But I am come to autumn,

When all the leaves are gold.

 And then there is Shakespeare’s Sonnet 73 (one of my favorites):

That time of year thou mayst in me behold

When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang

Upon those boughs which shake against the cold,

Bare ruin’d choirs, where late the sweet birds sang.

If fall is the beginning of old age, what does the equinox represent?  An equanimous acceptance of aging headed for the final solstice of death?  I just learned that Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement – a time for reflection – was celebrated yesterday and always falls around the time of the Autumnal Equinox.

And that all got me pondering how we make sense of the stages and division of our lives.  I have talked about this before in relation to writing a life review (“Feast on Your Life”).  Such a pause can be a useful tool with which to try to make sense of our past (or to realize it makes no sense).  What were the moments in your life that marked a new path?  A birthday, a graduation, a birth, a death?  Or was it something more mundane – when you started meditating, learned to play bridge, or went blonde?

How do we divide up our lives to make sense of them?  By decades, seven-year spans, seasons, locations, occupations? Or are such divisions just arbitrary?

Augustine defined seven stages (famously reiterated by Shakespeare’s Jaques in As You Like It), which corresponded to the known planets, each life stage taking some of its characteristics from the planet under which it was situated.  Old age was influenced by the distant Saturn, which was responsible for its being “cold and dry.”  In literature and legend, there are examples of three, four, five, six and seven divisions of life.  (Note: AI says that there are eight stages because it includes gestation as a stage – apparently, AI is a believer in personhood at conception.)

As I look back at my life from the age of 75, I can make all sorts of divisions.  Moving always felt like a “new” stage, as did graduations, marriages, divorces, birth of children, major illnesses and surgeries, retirement – but these are circumstantial.  Is there some kind of deeper division?  Are the real makers far more private, more interior?

Are all such divisions artificial?  Did they make more sense when we had more rituals to note and understand the transitions?  Transitions are hard.  Even if they are eagerly anticipated.

I recently read about the Fibonacci sequence in which each number is the sum of the two numbers before, a formula that makes a graceful spiral and is found over and over again in nature.  The ratio of two consecutive numbers in the sequence gets closer and closer to something called “The Golden Ratio” or about 1.618.  It turns out that many flowers have petals that correspond to such a number and it is a frequent descriptor of tree branching, water flow, and many more natural processes.   Could we apply it to the stages of our lives?  The sequence within the framework of any life would be 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89 – since the next number would be far above current longevity records, we will have to assume that the last stage begins at 89!  In some ways this works for me – at 1, I learned to walk, to talk at 2, to read at 5, to swim at 8 – you see the possibilities.  And I would also note that while the average lifespan in the US is in the high seventies, the median is in the low eighties, and the mode (the age at which the most people die) is close to that last Fibonacci number of 89.

But almost any sequence (7 years, 3 ages, 4 seasons) is worth using if it gets us thinking about what went on in our lives, what changed, what stayed the same.  And in relation to my serenity project – when were we most calm, most content?  And why?  Was it circumstances that mattered or attitude?  Such reflections are, I am told, where wisdom comes from.

Change both gives and requires wisdom; the world is changing at a frightening rate these days.  It is important that our reactions be conscious, and looking at the past intersections of life might help.

Who Am I? Why Am I So Afraid of AI?

Here is one truth about aging that we don’t talk about often: we are much more ashamed of signs of mental decline than we are of the physical decay of our bodies.  We don’t like our aging spots or wrinkles, but they don’t make us feel inadequate in the same way that forgetting a name or an appointment does.   Why is it that none of the physical infirmities of old age shame me?  I am not ashamed of my grey hair or the fact that I can no longer hike six miles.  I don’t like the brown spots on my hands, but I am not really ashamed of them.  But the mind is different.  When I forget a name or a common word and have to fish for it, I can exclaim, “Senior Moment!” and laugh – but I really do not think it is funny.  I think it is a profound loss.  And that is not good for the serenity I have been seeking.

Last week my husband came in after a morning errand to tell me that I had forgotten to put the gas cap on and close the little door after I filled up the car the day before.  I had also neglected to notice the message on my dashboard that would have reminded me to go do it.  I felt awful.  I occasionally leave a burner on or leave a light burning when I go to bed.  And, of course, I fish around for names and sometimes ordinary words.  I have always been somewhat absent-minded (as was my mother before me), but it seems to be getting a little worse and more mortifying.

The aging of my physical body does not please me, but it does not mortify me.  I stopped dyeing my hair a dozen years ago; I wear little makeup and have not explored plastic surgery, although I did have my upper eyelids lifted when I started having trouble seeing beyond their droop. Why the difference?

We clearly don’t identify our selves with our aging bodies.  There is Freud’s recollection of catching an unexpected glimpse of himself in a mirror:

Jumping up with the intention of putting him right, I at once realized to my dismay that the intruder was nothing but my own reflection in the looking-glass of the open door. I can still recollect that I thoroughly disliked his appearance. (from “The Uncanny”)

Similarly, Jonathan Swift, upon being led across a room in his dotage, caught sight of himself in a mirror and cried out “O poor old man.”  And so cry we all. And yet, loss of the mind – even in bits and pieces – is worse.  Many of us fear it more than physical death.  Is the reason we are afraid to die not the loss of the body, but the fact that the body will take our consciousness, our sense of identity with it?

And is our source of identity the reason that AI scares us so much?  Artificial hips or implanted lenses don’t scare us.  We are grateful for them.  We don’t mind using motorized scooters if we can’t walk or using hearing aids when we can’t hear. No one is afraid of wearing glasses.  But do we want technology to replace our brain? If we could implant something in our brain to “help” us remember names, would we want to do it?

One of the best sources of how AI was developed is a small book, The Maniac, by Benjamin Labatut.  He tells the story of Johnny von Neumann, which leads into the story of Demis Hassabis, a developer of AI and the founder of DeepMind.  I strongly recommend this book – a lucid read on a difficult subject.  Hassabis finds no problem with developing a machine that can think better than we can, and he does.  One of the proofs is that his AI can beat chess masters, and also the masters of Go, a game developed in China over 2,500 years ago, with a system of grand masters known for their wisdom as well as their skill.  In 2016, his AI program took on the master Lee Sedol in Korea for the best of five games with the understanding that all five games would be played regardless of outcome.  AI handily won the first three.  Sedol was demoralized, but persevered and somehow beat AI in the fourth game.  The crowd exploded:

Outside the hotel, Lee’s fans were running in the streets of Seoul, chanting and celebrating their hero’s victory.  Even the team at DeepMind, who had lost, rather embarrassingly, were amazed at Lee’s stunning ability to create something out of nothing.  How could a man, however smart, defeat a computer like AlphaGo, able to calculate over two hundred million positions a second.  Surely it was a feat that would go down in history… something that all mankind could truly celebrate.  (The Maniac)

Why were they so happy?  Sedol had already lost the tournament.  They were happy because AI threatens our very identity, our purpose, our souls.  Needless to say, Hassabis was not happy.  DeepMind fixed AlphaGo and Lee Sedol retired a short time later calling AI “an entity that cannot be defeated.”  He said his “entire world had collapsed.”  Why would anyone play Go again? (I’ll come back to that.)

AI will not get old and forget names and leave the gas cap off.  It will get more and more perfect as my brain probably gets more and more unreliable.  But it is my brain.  It has brought me this far with its own memories and capacities.  If it were fixed, I would not be me.

In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), Locke had taken up the subject of personal identity, connecting personhood to consciousness and memory:

For since consciousness always accompanies thinking, and it is that that makes everyone to be what he calls self, and thereby distinguishes himself from all other thinking things: in this alone consists personal identity, i.e. the sameness of a rational being.  And as far as this consciousness can be extended backwards to any past action or thought, so far reaches the identity of that person.  (II: xxvii: 9)

Linking consciousness and memory to identity is problematic in relation to old age, when changes in cognitive abilities may challenge our assurance of continuous identity.  I will have to accept that.  But that same consciousness is my personal identity.  To lose that identity to a machine would be a living death.

I do what I can for my memory.  I push myself to read difficult books, I do puzzles, I enroll in a French class. I create appointment reminders.  I check the stove before I go to bed.  But it is a little silly to accept that the body is changing while refusing to believe that our gray matter is affected too.  And perhaps it is even sillier to think we can patch up our minds with computer chips and not lose our selves in the process.  In the end I am less afraid of my aging mind than I am of AI.

And I continue to enjoy doing the things that AI could do for me.  I play the piano when I could stream Glen Gould playing Bach, I knit hats that computerized mills can make much more quickly and error-free. I do not use AI to write my blog.  There is a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment in doing such things.  But I had these habits before the advent of AI; I despair for the children.

In Capek’s play R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots and where the term robot originated), about the takeover of robots as they first serve mankind and then get rid of them, one of the humans cries that the only solution is to “help people return to their former worries and labor…there is nothing more terrible than giving people paradise on earth.”  Because earth is not paradise and our minds and bodies are not eternal.  And there is some comfort in that.

For more discussion of identity, you might try my past blog, “Was She Someone?”

 

Taking Secrets to the Grave?

I am still thinking about ways to achieve serenity in these elder years, to find a taste of heaven before I die.  One barrier to serenity, it seems to me, is secrets.  Things we don’t talk about, perhaps we don’t even want to think about.  I have them.  I would guess that you do too.

Several recent books [spoiler alert here]– The Things We Never Say by Elizabeth Strout, John of John by Douglas Stuart, and Whistler by Ann Patchett – are stories about such truths: facts that finally surface (or fail to surface) at the end of life.  In Strout’s book, the true paternity of the son is known by all but not admitted to each other, while in Stuart’s novel, the Bible-thumping father is gay, and he is living with a son who is also hiding his sexuality.  Patchett gives us the story of a father and his beloved stepdaughter, whom a divorce separated from him many years ago.  The reasons for the failure of the marriage are learned by the stepdaughter, who has pined for her missing stepfather for years.  All of these secrets involve sexuality in some ways – adultery, homosexuality – things that seem important when we are young, but when we get old – not so much.  I think.  But still hidden truths fester – and they are not all about sexuality.  Some are about much more important things.  You know the ones I mean.

In The Things We Never Say the main character, Artie Dam (A.Dam?), has found out he is not his son’s biological father.  He means to confront his wife about it, but he… can’t.  And he sees his false position in parallel with the world around him, with Trump newly re-elected, and doing things that… no one wants to talk about.

Artie watched all these things, and he slowly understood that what he had felt the day of the election was true:  His country was committing suicide.

He loses interest in all things that used to mean something to him.  The discovery of a hidden truth has pushed him off balance and politics is keeping him that way. His son leaves the country to work for the EU and cautions Artie to talk to him only on burner phones.  He has a breakdown in his classroom and finally, during a heatwave when they have lost their power, Artie goes to lie down.  “When Evie went upstairs she found Artie in his undershorts lying on the bed, his arms splayed out as though he was sunbathing, dead.”  The image of Christ on the cross.  Sacrificed on the altar of getting through life without making a scene.  An autopsy reveals that his heart failed, but we knew that.

The father in John of John has hidden his sexuality from almost everyone except his ex-wife.  Living on the Scottish Isle of Lewis, he is the psalmist for a conservative Christian congregation.  His son, who is also gay but knows nothing about his father’s orientation, comes home with the need and fear of telling some truths to his father.  In the end, it is the father who has the most trouble accepting the truth of his own life – but isn’t that often the case?

Anne Patchett slowly unveils the truths that her characters are hiding.  Those who were children at the time had no clue what was going on – and mistakenly felt responsible for the anguish of the adults around them.  Some people think children know more than they seem to, but there was a lot my childhood self didn’t know, and it seemed that the adults in my life were going to make sure I stayed confused.  Telling such truths to people who were once children in our lives is often a true gift to them.  But it is not easy.

I should mention here that keeping secrets is harder than it used to be.  Ubiquitous DNA testing and data “matching” means that if you tell a lie about a child’s paternity, the child is probably going to find out about it.  Similarly, databases of newspapers, government records, census information, and criminal activity mean that if someone wants to know about us, there are a lot of places to look.  A friend of mine never told her children about an early brief marriage; they discovered simultaneously about both the marriage and the fact that their mother was not always truthful with them.  Secrets need to be weighed carefully against issues of need to know, trust, and the cost of revelation.

Time is running out for we elders – pretty soon keeping mum will not be up to us; that decision will be pre-empted by the run-up to death, or Death itself which “seals up all in rest.” (Sonnet 73)  Some people push it off until after their death – leaving behind letters to explain their past actions and money as atonement – but that is not a solution.  And remember, secrets do not have to be something locked in a real or psychological safe; they might just be things we prefer not to talk about.

In a reading about the Tao this morning I came across this description of the only goal we all have in common: “A gracious death with no regrets.”  We might keep secrets for good reasons, and we should have no regrets there.  But if secrets are impinging on the serenity of late life, it would not hurt to consider exposing some of the truths we keep from others and from ourselves.

For a story about some good deathbed counsel, you might try my story, “The More Loving One.”  And hats off to Auden.

All three novels referenced above are recommended.

 

Projections of Old Age

Jenny Joseph was only in her twenties when she wrote her ubiquitous poem “Warning” (“When I am an old woman, I shall wear purple”).  It projects a feisty version of old age; however, the poems she wrote in her own old age were much more credible.  This is from “A Patient Old Cripple” written when she was in her eighties:

I curse the world that blunders into me, and hurts

But know

Its bad fit is the best we can do.

When Jenny Joseph was very old, according to the BBC she found herself somewhat “annoyed” by the success of her early poem, which overshadowed her whole career.  So, the old ladies in purple dresses and red hats are really the projection of a young adult on how she would like her own old age to be.  What do we think about that?

This got me thinking about the difference between how we thought we would be in old age (or maybe how we hoped to be) and the actuality of our later years. Do our expectations of what it would be like to be old influence what kind of old person we become?  Old age was something I thought about even in middle age.  I was aware that I had been somewhat unconscious (sometimes downright comatose) during my earlier phases – youth, young adulthood, middle age – but I set out to craft a more conscious old age.  To help me think about that, I looked to literature.  And, representations of the old in literature include both those of the young imagining older characters, and old people writing about old characters like themselves.

When we are very lucky, we find authors and other artists who create over a full lifetime.  I find it particularly interesting to examine how their work has changed over the years and have written about that here and here.  Some writers have worked over the decades of a long life, consider the authors Wendell Berry or Marilynne Robinson, the poets Gary Snyder or Mary Oliver, and songwriters Bob Dylan or Leonard Cohen.

In cases like that of Jenny Joseph, we even have the youthful projections of a young writer as to what old age will be like.  For example, we have Jonathan Swift’s list of life rules, “When I Come to Be Old” (hence the title of this blog), which were written when he was 32 and working as secretary to a much older man.  This old man’s habits are presumably inscribed as “thou shalt nots” on the list, and the notable and scary thing is that contemporary descriptions of Swift’s old age match the negative qualities Swift swears to avoid.  Swift did, however, recognize the futility of such rules in the last rule: “Not to set up for observing all these rules, for fear I should observe none.”  And, of course, Swift was a notoriously difficult old man – how much of his character as an old man was the result of his expectations?  Or out of his control?

Lately we’ve been finally watching Monk, so I’ve had Randy Newman (who does the theme song “It’s a Jungle Out There”) on my mind.  Newman, age 82, is still alive and has had an even longer and diverse career than I was aware of, having written the scores for several of the Pixar movies (which I haven’t seen).  I remember him most fondly for songs like “I Think It’s Going to Rain Today” (1968), and “You’ve Got a Friend in Me.”  He wrote the wonderful “God’s Song” for the hilarious movie Cold Turkey in 1971.  And, of course, he spawned controversy.  Remember “Short People” or the mock xenophobic song “I’m Dreaming of a White President” that he wrote for Barak Obama?  It contains the prescient lyrics:

I’m dreaming of a white President
Just like the ones we’ve always had
A real live white man who knows the score
How to handle money
Or start a war
Wouldn’t even have to tell me
What we were fighting for
He’d be the right man…

Randy Newman wrote an early song (1972), when he was only 29, called “Old Man,” about a dying father – and then another in 2017, about an old man losing his wife: “Lost Without You.”  Newman’s lyrics are always worth paying attention to, and I will decline to post the full lyrics here.  (You can find them by clicking on the song titles above.)  The early song was the words of the young man trying to communicate with his dying old man.  “Can you hear me?” the younger singer repeats over and over again.  He is ruthless.  He assumes the old man does not want to die; he assumes that he could open his eyes if he wanted to.  He reminds the old man that there “Won’t be no God to comfort you / You taught me not to believe that lie” and that “You don’t need anybody, nobody needs you.”  Newman’s tongue might be in his cheek, as it often is, but it is a cruel song.  As an old person, I would have opened my eyes just to tell this impertinent young person to leave my side.  “Don’t cry, everybody dies.”  Yes, everybody dies but almost everyone also cries.

The second song (written when Newman was about 71) is narrated by an old man (perhaps the young man from the earlier song grown old?) who is sitting by his wife’s deathbed.  The children are apparently complaining about their father and the mother rebukes them:

“Make sure he sleeps in his bed at night
Don’t let him sleep in that chair
If he holds out his hand to you, hold it tight
If that makes you uncomfortable
Or if it embarrasses you
I don’t care.”

And the old man speaks of his fears:

Even if I knew which way the wind was blowing
Even if I knew this road would lead me home
Even if I knew for once where I was going
I’m lost out here
Baby, I’m lost out here
I’m lost out here without you…

The older Newman is definitely on the side of the old folks – the old dying woman who wants to make sure someone will take care of the love of her life and the old man who is “lost out here without you.”  Newman has come a long way from “You don’t need anybody.”  These are real people who are really dying, and they are not afraid of dying – they are just afraid they will not be able to take care of each other anymore.  And we feel that now he knows what it feels like to be the elder.

I encourage you to read the books of the old – not just about old people but written by the old themselves.  I will try to create a list of recommendations and post it.  I would also recommend an article that appeared in 2015 in the NYTimes, “What Old Age is Really Like,” written by a young author trying to write about old people, and to whom I owe the credit for steering me to the poetry of Jenny Joseph’s old age.  For a fairy tale of how we project and stereotype old age, try my story “Tale of Two Grannies.”

The Old Age of Odysseus

Everywhere I go, people are talking about Nolan’s The Odyssey.  I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I have a deep love for the text and wonder how many people realize that it is a book about old age?

Of course, Homer’s epic is about many things.  Most obviously, it is about a man trying to get home.  When I first read it, it reminded me of a recurring dream where I am trying to get somewhere and obstacles keep stopping me.  When I was a student, I was trying to get to class to take an exam in the dream.  As a young mother, I was trying to get home to feed some starving animals in my dream.  I think this interrupted journey is a kind of universal dream theme.  But in reading The Odyssey in my old age, it is evident to me that this is also a story of old age, a dream of… what?

Everyone agrees that Odysseus is an old man for his time (between 55 and 60) when he finally arrives back in Ithaca after many storms and seductions to impede his progress.  He is obviously still a strong and vital man, especially when contrasted with his wonderful old dog and his ancient father – who must have been about 80.  He battles the suitors, and then the relatives of the slain, until the gods negotiate a peace, and finally… what?  Well, it depends on whom you ask.

The text itself gives one answer.  When Odysseus is in the underworld he converses with the prophet Tiresias, who tells him exactly what will and should happen:

But once you have killed those suitors in your halls – /by stealth or in open fight with slashing bronze – /go forth once more, you must … /carry your well-planed oar until you come /to a race of people who know nothing of the sea…. And here is your sign –/ unmistakable, dear, so clear you cannot miss it: /When another traveler falls in with you and calls /that weight across your shoulder a fan to winnow grain,/ then plant your bladed, balanced oar in the earth and sacrifice fine beasts to the lord god of the sea, Poseidon…/ And at last your own death will steal upon you … /a gentle, painless death, far from the sea it comes to take you down, borne down with the years in ripe old age /with all your people there in blessed peace around you. (Book XI, Fagles translation)

Toward the end of the Odyssey (Book 23), Odysseus repeats Tiresias’s entire prophesy to Penelope, including the manner of his death.  His wife takes it as a good omen:

“And so,” Penelope said, in her great wisdom,

“If the gods will really grant a happier old age,

There’s hope that we’ll escape our trials at last. (Fagles translation)

But the Western world was not content for Odysseus to fade into a peaceful old age.  In the Inferno, Dante places Odysseus in the eighth circle of hell for his “horse’s fraud that caused a breach” and other deceptions, and out of the burning flame where he is locked for eternity, he tells Dante and Virgil that he couldn’t stand a peaceful old age in Ithaca:

Neither my fondness for my son nor pity

For my old father nor the love I owed

Penelope, which would have gladdened her,

Was able to defeat me in the longing I had… (Mandelbaum translation)

So, Dante’s Odysseus gathered up his old comrades (the few that were left) and told them they were “not made to give your lives as brutes” but to follow a higher calling – and they followed him right out of the Mediterranean, into the southern hemisphere, and to their death in an eddy of the deep sea.  And what is the lesson there?

The lesson for Tennyson, when he penned his great poem “Ulysses” was that old men should be adventurers.  He starts his poem with Ulysses being bored with a peaceful life in Ithaca:

It little profits an idle king,

By this still hearth, among these barren craigs,

Matched with an agèd wife, I mete and dole

Unequal laws to a savage race…

And so he riles up the old guys to take to the sea again:

We are not now that strength which in old days

Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are,

One equal temper of our heroic hearts,

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

There is a contradiction – the old men are to acknowledge what they “are,” but to override their age and weakness to strive and “not to yield.”  There is no acceptance here.  The deceptive Odysseus thinks he can somehow put one over on the natural order of things.  In our world of old men who seem determined “not to yield,” to fight one last war, and to build monuments of many kinds to themselves, Tennyson’s poem leaves a sour taste in my mouth.  “Do not go gentle into that good night” says Dylan Thomas.  If some of these old men went a little gentler, whole civilizations might be saved.

I have not yet seen Christopher Nolan’s movie – I am waiting for it to come to my small screen where the violence will be less overwhelming.  It is my understanding that Nolan’s version has it’s very own ending, perhaps a little softened and de-misogynized for the modern viewer.  I will continue to believe that Tiresias knew what would and should happen.  Odysseus would turn his back on the sea, make sacrifices to appease the gods that haunted with him, and rule in Ithaca.  And then, like all men he would die.  And, like lucky men and women, he would die at peace with his family and the world.

For an excellent supplement to any reading of The Odyssey, try Helen Luke’s essay in Old Age: Journey Into Simplicity.   For reading about how The Odyssey can affect your life, Daniel Mendelsohn’s An Odyssey: A Father, A Son, and An Epic and Norman Fischer’s Sailing Home: Using Homer’s Odyssey to Navigate Life are both highly recommended.  Keep a copy of The Odyssey close at hand when you are reading, of course!

 

 

 

 

 

Constructive Forgetting

I’m still thinking about single-pointedness and the mass of things we need to “unlearn” in our old age.  As Philip Larkin said in a poem of his own old age, left unpublished at his death:

Most people know more as they get older:
I give all that the cold shoulder.

I spent my second quarter-century
Losing what I had learnt at university.

And refusing to take in what had happened since.
Now I know none of the names in the public prints… (“The Winter Palace”)

“Unlearning” sounds like something bad, a sin against progress – and yet it is probably the only way to comprehend and accept old age and death.  And one of the things we have to unlearn is both the ability and the desire to multitask.

Our generation learned to multitask with a vengeance.  Women (like me) were trying to figure out how to raise kids and have a career, while dealing with cascading technology – all at the same time.  Men were discovering that they weren’t married to their mothers and that they had no models for the new family life.  Frequent divorces amongst the baby boomers (the highest rate of any generation) meant that single parents had to figure out yet another set of staggering complexities.  Radios and televisions were constantly on – radios in the car and TVs at home – adding a level of input to already frenetic lives.  We were (at the same time) proud of our ability to talk to the babysitter on the phone while writing a report at work, yet increasingly frantic about coping.

When the kids left home (if they did), life got a little easier, but not much.  There was always a new computer system to learn at work, social media emerged as a distraction, and life was still messy.  And finally, we retired.  Time to meditate, concentrate on the important things – except we had forgotten how.

I don’t know about you, but my ability to be single-minded, one-pointed, to concentrate over long periods of time was shot.  I am fine doing Wordle, making supper, or doing other “short” tasks, but even with lots of quiet time on my hands, I have trouble sustaining “long” concentration. and I am not the only one.  Elizabeth Bishop bemoaned the “Art of Losing” as one grew older, but I put my hat in Larkin’s ring.  There are many things I would like to lose.

Many elders do continue to proudly multitask, as we keep ourselves busy juggling our pickleball, travel schedule, volunteer jobs, and Botox appointments.  Or we throw ourselves into the lives of our children and grandchildren. And remember that even having the TV on in the background puts you in multi-tasking mode! There is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of this, but I’m not sure that it really helps us to “know more as [we] get older.”

In his Convivio, Dante pictures the course of life as a parabola. We go up and we come down.  The “high point” of the parabola is around age thirty-five, a date Dante arrives at based on Christ’s death in this thirty-fourth year. “It was not fitting that his divinity should be present in something that was in decline.”  What, exactly, is “in decline” in the latter part of life?  What is “diminishing”?  I can give you a long list: teeth, endurance, bone density, strength – and you may add your own infirmities.  But, is there something waxing that compensates for that which is waning?  There is nothing very positive about losing your hair or teeth, but in losing reflexive multi-tasking, I think there is a gain.

My grandparents were wary of new technology; they finally bought a black and white TV, but it wasn’t on often and they spent hours just sitting on the back porch.  Papa often smoked his pipe and Nana picked at some knitting or embroidery, but for long periods of time the pipe and the needles just sat on their laps.  As a child, I couldn’t begin to imagine what they were thinking about.  Now I wish I could ask them.

Looking back over experience is one thing that time and concentration allow.  In Woolf’s To the Lighthouse, the “slow” review of experience is extolled:

The compensation of growing old…was simply this; that the passions remain as strong as ever, but one has gained – at last! – the power which adds the supreme flavour to existence, the power of taking hold of experience, of turning it round, slowly, in the light.

And in Sackville-West’s All Passion Spent, Lady Slane calls “looking back on the girl she had once been” as the “last, supreme luxury…. She could lie back against death and examine life.”

There is more than memory than one-pointedness allows, but it is hard to get there.  For reading, it is recommended that longer and more difficult books be tried in stages.  And so it is with concentration.  It is not a matter of fighting distractions.  It is a matter of acknowledging them and putting them away as no longer needed, I think.  But any suggestions are welcome.  I’ll leave you with this excerpt from “New Year’s Resolve” by May Sarton:

For it is now or not
As old age silts the stream,
To shove away the clutter,
To untie every knot,
To take the time to dream,
To come back to still water.

I am in constant search of “still water.”

For a story about remembering and forgetting, you might try my “Amnesia at the Airport.”

 

 

 

 

What’s the Point? Where is the Perspective of Old Age?

In conjunction with my old age “serenity project,” I have been working more diligently on my meditation, trying to get to a “one-pointed” concentration.  I am actually very disciplined about meditation – an hour in the morning and another forty-five minutes in the afternoon, but “showing up” does not always mean progress.  To meditate, one can start by focusing on almost anything – your breath, the sound of the birds, bodily sensations – but the key is to limit intrusions of memories, worries, plans – and this is a challenge for me.  T. S. Eliot reminds us that it is the “still point of the turning earth,” where “the dance is.” This sounds surprisingly similar to what the Taoists say about a “single-pointed” mind: “A mind that is clearly focused, however, receives all things and can abide in utter tranquility. It is no exaggeration to say that its world revolves around it.”   If we could only get our minds down to that one, still point.

Pinhole cameras are a good metaphor for one-pointedness.  Such cameras were widely used in the 19th century, but even before that, artists used pinhole mechanisms to reflect subjects and scenes onto paper for tracing.  The principle is the same as that of a camera obscura, in which a pinhole lets in a sliver of light which opens into an upside-down image of whatever it is pointed at.  A few years ago I visited one of the world’s oldest camera obscuras in a windmill in Dumphries, Scotland.  That camera projects inverted images of the whole city in a darkened room and has been in continuous operation since 1836.

For our metaphor, it is relevant that the images from a pinhole are upside down.  In old age, aren’t we looking at life from an upside-down and backward position?  We are remembering  more than planning, we are trying to distill sense out of what has already happened rather than struggling to make things happen. To do this, we need to get down to that single point, and after a lifetime of striving to multi-task, this is not easy.

For pinhole cameras or camera obscuras, the smaller the pinhole, the sharper the image.  And so it seems to be with concentration.  To really look at life, we need to narrow our gaze steadily until things come into focus, to be prepared to look at things from a whole different perspective.  Upside down and backwards.

Here’s a secret that I discovered about meditation, from Ayya Khema via Leigh Brasington.  One-pointedness will not only result in better concentration, but if the “pinhole” is small enough, one may enter the first jhana.  This state includes a kind of physical and mental rapture or pīti. The fact that our body gives us this pleasing sensation in exchange for finally centering our mind is proof enough that there is much to be gained by making our attention a steady lens on one particular thing.  Such are the rewards of focusing.  When I first encountered pīti, I described it as the tingling sensation after sneezing – but stronger.  Others have compared it to a runner’s high.

The purpose of the first jhana is not the bliss, though. Bliss is just the carrot. The purpose is to focus and steady the mind in preparation for insight, to eventually understand one’s own mind, to glimpse… nirvana.  There is a whole series of jhanas, which become more abstract, but knowing about the first one is enough to realize that any serenity project must begin with steering the mind to single-pointedness.  And if you’ve ever tried this, you’ll know that your mind doesn’t think that you are its master.  It’s hard.  How do we have any hope of avoiding the aggressive distractions of Capitalism 2.0 when we can’t even limit the distractions manufactured by our own minds?

My point is not that everyone needs to meditate.  But everyone does need a point from which to focus on their lives.  Euclid started his Elements with the definition of a point:  “that which has no part,” something without width, length, or breadth, but with an indivisible location.

When Spinoza (you didn’t think you would escape without a dose of Spinoza, did you?) constructed his philosophical system (based on the methodology of Euclid), he reasoned that he first had to find:

…some real good having power to communicate itself, which would affect the mind singly, to the exclusion of all else; whether, in fact, there might be anything of which the discovery and attainment would enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme and unending happiness.

Perhaps, almost anything we can concentrate on “singly” can be the start to Spinoza’s extravagant goals. If we are trying to make sense of life, come to terms with life, live with serenity – we need to identify a single point on which to build our understanding.  Though not easy, it is worthy of trial and consideration.  As Spinoza says at the end of his Ethics, “All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.”

By the way, if you go to Dumphries for the camera obscura or any of a number of other good reasons, eat at Bruno’s.  You will not be disappointed.

You might also look at my short story “Nothing New” for an alternative way to help limit distractions and narrow the aperture into the mind.