We believe that there are some invisible energy channels between people, some intangible communication. I remember an example from the book "Monsters and magic wands" (this is also about the fact that they do not always leave at an advanced age). An infant (an unwanted child) was dying there, the doctors were powerless, a psychologist (not an academic) came to this crumb and began to talk to him. He said that he understands that it seems to him that no one needs him, he said that he himself would be hurt, would not want to live … he said that there are many people in this world, including kind and good, that there are many beautiful things in it for which it is worth living, such as love, beauty, nature… And now it seemed to the psychologist that baby’s greenish face turned pink … the child went on the mend; he chose to live.

Question: what would happen if the same words were said by another person who would be indifferent to the future fate of the baby, who would internally disagree with these words?… Our semantic space works, our attitude, our openness, sincere interest, the ability to existential encounter. And the fact that everyone is an individual does not mean that we are not connected, does not mean that we cannot be one. Our delusion about the separation within is a consequence of the apparent physical separation, the separation of our physical bodies and human egoism. Understanding the alienation34 of oneself from the world as a matter of personal choice, outgrowing oneself as an ego is the key moment in unpacking the meanings of death.

We believe that the same example is suitable for illustrating the next issue of this chapter – overcoming death with meaning, going beyond it. We have already considered two of its key aspects in the book "New Horizons of Old Age": unity (the connection of everything with everything) and the answer to the question "Who am I?". And if the first aspect is eloquently reflected in the example with the baby (and most likely you, my reader, will be able to recall confirmations from your own life), then the second is a continuation of the question of the freedom of choice of perception and its purely applied nature.

If someone claims that the end of human existence is the death of the body, then what does this mean? Obviously, it's not that this is the case, that this is true or not true; but it definitely says something about the perception of this person, about how he chose to see himself and the world (he chose to be an atheist, a materialist, maybe considers himself a descendant of monkeys or something like that). As in this case, it is proposed to go beyond such a finiteness of being – socially (leave offspring, make a contribution to the development of science, benefit society and the fruits of your deeds will outlive you). Of course, such a view puts some restrictions on the semantic sphere, since no clear answer has been received to the question of questions about the meaning of life.

Although we do not set the task here to trace the roots of this or that attitude to death and its perception, nevertheless, we note that after three years35 a person is identified with the logic of thinking that is inherent in society. I.e., it is not developed, but assimilated; with a certain degree of certainty, we can talk about a person as a product of social logic. Its content includes, among other things, death, which is understood as the death of the whole person: the death of the body is a total disappearance from existence. The child initially does not have such an understanding, for example, if you tell him that dad is dead, then in the child's mind it is presented something like this: "well, he died, and that he should not come to me tomorrow for my birthday?". It is important to understand that there are other variants of logic (for example, in India), where "dad died" will mean that "dad is now in the next room, and we keep a relationship with him, he is still with us, but in a different way."