A recent book on the ‘neuro-science’ of grief promises its readers “an understanding of the changeable and unpredictable nature of grief” — because, apparently, without PET scans and a ‘modern’ understanding of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology and neuropsychology that ‘changeable and unpredictable’ course of grief would not be ‘knowable’. The questions are legion. Knowable to whom? In what sense? What is understanding? Are these sensible questions? Or as Evan Connell put it: quem colorem habent sapientiae?

For many people, including myself, ‘traditional’ religions are of no help—and ‘science’ offers empty promises. Is there an alternative? Yes, but as Dante put it almost exactly 700 years ago in words that have a different meaning in our world than his: lasciate ogne Speranza, voi che’intrate. Give up hope because your task is to see what is, not what you hope to see, or what you want to have been.

When I grieve the absence of people who are dead—Arne, Grace, Ramon and others whose names I cannot immediately recall—I do and will grieve the loss of the person who was and what we had between us—in all of its horror and tedium and fun—but not the ‘loss’ of something I imagine but which never was.

And the knowledge of the neuroanatomy and neurophysiology of how that ‘knowledge’ lingers in my brain changes not a single thing. Fascinating though it may be on other counts.