Andrzej reminisces about how he met Malgorzata

July 3, 2025 • 9:45 am

Malgorzata died suddenly on June 17, simply leaving her life instantly as she sat at her desk, with Andrzej watching in shock. Insofar as a death can be seen as “good”, this one was. I would like to go that way. But of course Andrzej, who was facing her at their abutting desks, was devastated, as are all of us. I used to call her every day to get the news of Israel or ask her questions, and I had talked to her just that morning, when she seemed fine. I still have the constant impulse to call her up before I remember that she is no longer here.

Andrzej is soldiering on, keeping their joint website Listy going. It’s very popular among Polish atheists, rationalists, and science lovers, and of course it is sympathetic to Israel.

Among today’s articles is this sweet and sad reminiscence of Andrzej, “Diary found in an old head,” in which he recounts how he met Malgorzata over sixty years ago. I have reproduced the English translation, made with the help of ChatGPT, Andrzej’s touch-up thereof, and some revisions by Malgorzata’s old friend Sarah Lawson.  Translation is below, and you can click on the title to go to the original.

I have to say that every detail of this story is new to me. I never asked Andrzej or Malgorzata how they met, except that I knew it was on the recommendation of an professor who thought they could collaborate well on a paper.  It’s a brutally honest account that also conveys the atmosphere of Communist Poland at the time.

The picture at the top is, of course, Malgorzata.

A long, long time ago, there was communism in Poland. It wasn’t Russian communism, nor African communism, nor Yugoslav communism. It was our very own Polish communism. I never saw communists in Poland. There were opportunists, plenty of scoundrels, dreamers like Jacek Kuroń, enchanted by utopia and wanting to build it, and there were fools like me, who got duped by the idea of ​​revisionism—that is, softening it from the inside. (Maybe I’ll write separately about my adventure with revisionism one day.)

There were no communists because in private it always turned out they were pretending—for bread and for career. It was the year 1962. Associate Professor Włodzimierz Wesołowski called me into his office and asked if I’d read Burnham’s  The  Managerial Revolution . Giedroyc had published Burnham in Polish in 1958; I knew about the book and had been looking for a way to access it. Wesołowski knew I was fascinated by Weber. He asked if I’d like to write a paper on Burnham. And he laughed. I asked if it could be an honest paper. He replied that a few quotes from Marx would come in handy. He wrote me a permit for the prohibitions section (that is, permission to borrow a restricted book from the university library). He paused and asked: “Do you know Ms. Jakubowicz?” I shook my head. He said, “She’s a very intelligent student. She’s already read it—maybe you two could write the paper together.” He gave me her address.

Małgorzata Jakubowicz lived on Trębacka Street, in a building for employees of the Ministry of Culture, where her mother worked. I rang her doorbell the next day and told her about the associate professor’s proposal. She invited me into her little room. Light-colored furniture, a narrow bed, a desk under the window with an “Underwood” typewriter on it (a heavy office monster, but indestructible), and a bookshelf behind her.

“Have you read Burnham yet?” Student Jakubowicz asked sternly. I replied that I hadn’t, but I already had a copy, and I’d read quite a bit about it. “Have you read books on similar topics?” came the next question. I wasn’t sure what to say; I told her I’d written about Weber and his concept of the ideal bureaucracy. Małgorzata nodded and began summarizing Burnham’s book. After a few minutes, I pulled the Underwood toward me, rolled in a sheet of paper, and started typing.

“What the hell are you doing, idiot?” my new acquaintance asked. I said I was writing down what she was saying because it was the best summary I’d ever heard.

That was when I saw her first smile. She took the typewriter from me and finished presenting the idea of ​​a world hijacked by manager-bureaucrats, controlling capital, politics, and media.

And then, this girl—three years younger than I—gave me an exam. What had I read? What did I think? How did I envision our joint paper?

I left Trębacka with a reading list and the task of returning in three days.

Then for a while, we saw each other every day. I met her boyfriend. Marek, older than she, a historian already working as an assistant in the history department, who looked at me suspiciously. I don’t blame him now, but back then I found it funny, because there was not a trace of sexual attraction in my friendship with Małgorzata. I was head over heels in love with my first wife, and for Małgorzata, I was just a guy she enjoyed talking to—somewhat suspect because I was a Party member.

One day she asked sternly: “Why are you in the Party?”

I replied: “Kolakowski’s in the Party too. Communism won’t end on its own—it can only be changed from within.”

“And you believe that?”

And shrugged. I already suspected I’d made a mistake. My father used to say: “Be careful—history turns everyone into an idiot. It’s a mean bastard.”

We wrote that paper. The friendship stayed, as did the need for frequent, one-on-one meetings, so no one would interrupt our conversations. My first wife, Krystyna, an actress much older than I who had left theater to write, was also uneasy about this friendship.

That first marriage of mine was from another world—bohemian, soaked in alcohol, a madhouse of narcissists and pretenders. My meetings with Małgorzata were a relief. The most down-to-earth person under the sun, zero emotion, pure practicality—the beauty of logic enchanted her more than the sublimity of sonnets. And yet, from time to time, we drifted in our talks into personal matters. Marek’s family was nationalist and rabidly anti-Semitic. Marek hadn’t told his parents that Małgorzata was Jewish. I listened and couldn’t understand. My world was falling apart too. Krystyna had fallen into alcoholism, and on top of that came drug addiction. She tried to drag me into it—thankfully, I didn’t succumb. Our affair had begun when I was in my first year. I failed several exams and lost two years of study. When I met Małgorzata, I was working and finishing university. Krystyna kept ending up in hospitals for forced treatment; she was caught forging morphine prescriptions. Treatment didn’t help. My life turned into hell. I watched the woman I loved turn into a wreck. After three years of struggle, I gave her an ultimatum: either quit alcohol and drugs completely, or I leave.

I’d go to work and come home knowing I’d find her unconscious again. She stopped going to work (she had worked in radio), stopped writing. I tried to convince her to write a book about the nightmare of addiction. It didn’t work. My concern sparked aggression and hatred in her. I asked a doctor what would happen if I left. He said: the same as if I stayed—only then we’d both go under. My singing beauty was already at the bottom. Now I could do only one thing—push off and come up for air.

In January 1967, I finally moved out to my sister’s place.

One day I visited Małgorzata. We hadn’t seen each other in a year—maybe longer. She was happy to see me, asked how things were and why I’d vanished. I told her I’d lost the fight to pull Krystyna back onto her feet.

Małgorzata made me recount the entire addiction story, my attempts to help, the doctors’ opinions. She asked how Krystyna was managing now. I said she was on sick leave, being helped by the Writers’ Union and her first husband, who was fairly well-off.

“Sometimes you have to start life from scratch. I broke up with Marek, too. A relationship between a Jewish girl and an nationalist family didn’t have good prospects.”

I said I had to run—new job, needed to get up to speed.

“What’s the job?”

“I’m now the head of a one-man unit pompously named the Center for Public Opinion Research at the Workers’ Agency—BOS-AR for short.”

Małgorzata burst out laughing and repeated, “a one-man center.” I nodded, saying they wouldn’t let me change the name, but I could be a rapporteur analyzing the research of other idiots doing pseudo-science called sociology.

At the door, she said quietly, “Come again.”

And came. Sometime in mid-February, we went to “Rycerska” for dinner. It’s the oldest story in the world. I kissed her in front of the gate on Trębacka. She laughed. Turning away, she said, “We’ll talk about it later.”

Next time I came over, she grabbed her sheepskin coat and said, “We’re going for a walk.”

We sat in the park in silence, looking ahead, only our hands running toward each other, shouting that we both wanted something more.

Finally, Małgorzata said: “Tomorrow is Sunday.”

I asked if I could come over.

“You can—I’ve got the key to my aunt’s apartment. She’s away. We’ll go there.”

A few days later, Małgorzata’s mother, Anna—a wonderful woman—stopped me on my way out.

“Stop fooling around,” she said. “Stay the night. You two can’t keep your hands off each other.”

We insisted bravely that we were still just friends, that this was just a fling until we found someone else, no commitments, we just liked talking, and now, a bit more, because we didn’t mind the lack of clothes. The masks had come off long ago—only the rest of the wardrobe remained.

Małgorzata, who had written her master’s thesis under Wesołowski, was now doing a PhD under his supervision. She had a position at the Institute of Sociology at the Polish Academy of Sciences, and more and more often we talked about how empty this sociology thing was, how few sociologists said anything worth hearing to the end.

“I should have gone into biology.”

“You’re being stupid,” I replied. “You have a brilliant legal mind. You should have studied law. But then I wouldn’t have met you, and that would’ve been very wrong.”

“Are you trying to say you’ve fallen in love?”

“I’m starting to suspect I fell in love with you at our first meeting, I just didn’t know it.”

“Hmm, let me think… Who knows—maybe it was mutual, mutually unconscious.”

March passed, April too. She liked my sister Barbara. Still uncertain, though—worried rejection would surface somewhere, some trace of antisemitism buried deep in Polish culture. She was surprised that my sister’s husband was Jewish too. Russian father, Jewish mother (a friend of my mother’s), and yet he was one hundred percent Pole—just a Jewish one.

We still went on walks, and when violets finally appeared, I bought her a bouquet at a flower shop. She quickly stuffed it into her coat pocket—she needed her hands to gesticulate.

May 1967 was ending. Israel was surrounded on all sides by massive armies. Egypt and Syria armed by the Soviet Union, and Jordan armed and egged on in its hatred of Israel by the British. Polish newspapers were blathering like Pravda. We sat glued to the radio, listening to Radio Free Europe. Małgorzata was a bundle of nerves. I knew she was right. Israel didn’t stand a chance. Its days were numbered. I tried to comfort her, spinning absurd scenarios—maybe America would intervene. But the reality was clear. Well, hopefully.

From the night of June 4 to 5, I was staying at Trębacka. In the morning, we learned Israel had attacked three Arab countries. We stared at each other in mute shock.

The first shock was nothing. After three days it was clear—billions of dollars’ worth of Soviet weaponry was turning to scrap metal before our eyes.

We weren’t alone in our insane joy. Now we listened to Radio Free Europe in groups—and with alcohol. On, I think, the fourth day of the war, we went to my sister’s place with a friend from the department, Jacek Tarkowski (now deceased). We drank a lot, and around midnight, on our way out, we danced a hora under Barbara’s window. Jacek improvised:

Hey there on the hill, there on a camel
Nasser’s fleeing, the dust clouds swirl
Oh my Dayan, oh my Dayan
Oh my Dayan, my one-eyed pearl

The second time, all three of us were shouting it. After the third time, we figured that was enough and headed toward the nearest taxi stand.

Barbara lived in a building for Polish Army officers’ families. A few days later I heard Gomułka spit into a microphone:

“Israel attacked the Arab countries, and in Warsaw, Jews were dancing in the streets with joy.”

If it weren’t for the fact that he said “Jews,” and it was two Polish Poles and one Polish Jew dancing under an officers’ block, I might’ve thought he was talking about us.

And Warsaw’s streets were really thrilled then. Every now and then, you’d hear someone say: “Our Jews gave it to those Russian Arabs.”

Andrzej’s Facebook posts about Malgorzata

June 18, 2025 • 9:30 am

I noticed on Facebook that Andrzej had made several posts about Malgorzata and his last memories of her from yesterday. Since they’re accessible to the public on FB, I’ll reproduce them here. The originals are in Polish but I’ll give the Google translations.  The first one shows the Polish original with a nice picture of Malgorzata:

English translation by Google, which of course isn’t perfect. If you read Polish, feel free to put better translations below:

Małgorzata died today, she died at the desk, a moment earlier we were joking, we were planning texts for tomorrow. There will be no funeral, Małgorzata decided, that her body should be used for science. Trying to get my thoughts together. Our relationship was only three months old, when the Arab armies gathered at the Egyptian borders. We were sure that the days of the people of Israel were numbered. Malgorzata was devastated, I tried to comfort her, I invented absurd scenarios, but of course I did not anticipate what happened on June 5, 1967. All those years between those days, and today the bow spins. We talked today about how amazing is the Israeli operation in Iran. I said it’s far away. She replied, let me enjoy what I have.

We weren’t just married, we were a couple of deafeningly close friends who liked to do everything together, understanding each other without words.

What’s next ? I don’t know. Małgorzata was explaining Brendan O’Neill’s text about western hemispheres in Egypt today. She said it have to go tomorrow It’s going to go. If there are mistakes, report them, I don’t really know what I’m doing.

Posts made this morning. “Letters” refers to their joint website Listy, where this one is also posted.  The daily Hili dialogues, in Polish, were on Listy, and I simply swiped them from there although Malgorzata sent me an English translation each morning:

Another; “Day six” refers to Israel’s war with Iran:

Finally, a public FB post by one of their friends:

Malgorzata died

June 17, 2025 • 11:59 am

Andrzej informed me this morning that Malgorzata died suddenly, almost instantly dropping out of life as she sat at her computer.  I had talked to her just this morning, and Andrzej said that the day had passed normally.  Then her head drooped at her desk, and she was gone.

Now she is dead, and all of us who loved her are bereft, but most especially Andrzej, who was both her life partner—they’d been married for sixty years—and her work partner. They were almost never apart: it was one of the best marriages I ever saw: a partnership of both the heart and the brain (Listy was a true collaboration).

I do not want to write more about this today, for it hurts, and I can’t wrap my head around it. I regarded her and Andrzej as my surrogate parents, and I can’t believe I’ll never speak to her again.

RIP Malgorzata; I loved you both as a surrogate mother and a good friend.

A few photos:

In the morning with Hili:

Dawkins on Dennett and with Dennett

April 28, 2024 • 11:20 am

This is, as far as I can see, Richard Dawkins’s memoriam for his pal Dan Dennett. Like many academics, I had my differences with Dan, but they didn’t get in the way of my affection for him, for he was never angry, vindictive, or irrational.  Yes, we differed about free will (he was a compatibilist who argued that we really did have “the kind of free will worth wanting”, largely ignoring the fact that most people are libertarians and hold to a justice system based largely on libertarian free will and maintaining that without some kind of formal affirmation of free will, society would disintegrate).  But that was an academic difference, though one with social consequences. Despite that, I miss the man and think the world is a poorer place without him. But if you read his autobiography I’ve Been Thinking, you’ll see he had a good run.

If you click on this tweet and then expand the video, you’ll hear an 18-minute disquisition on Dan, beginning with a elegy in which Richard quotes the poem “Heraclitus” by William Johnson Cory. Then about two minutes in there’s a filmed conversation between Dan and Richard explicitly on death—Dan had just recovered from an operation.  Both men agree that, as Dan says, “the best consolation is just that. . . they had a chance: they got to be on this stupendous planet and live for a while. . “.  That, of course, echoes Richard’s famous paean to existence in Unweaving the Rainbow that begins, “We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.” Richard gains special consolation by understanding the progress that gave rise to him and all life: evolution, mostly propelled by natural selection. Both men agree that a collection of such passages, perhaps named “Hymns to the Universe”, would be a worthwhile addition to the literature of humanism.

Both men show a gusto for life, even with its suffering, and I wish I shared that this morning!  Once you’ve been to the party, as Hitchens used to say, you regret leaving it, especially knowing that the party will go on.

Dan Dennett obituaries begin to appear

April 20, 2024 • 11:15 am

Dan Dennett died yesterday, and I still can’t believe he’s gone, though he’d used up a good portion of his nine lives in a series of cardiac events.  His NYT obituary can be read by clicking the screenshot below, or you can find it archived here.

The subheading seems to me a bit inaccurate. For one thing Dennett certainly did not think religion was an illusion, though he’s quoted saying that below. Perhaps he thought it was a delusion, but he certainly took it seriously as a human behavioral phenomenon, even though he was an atheist. What the subheading means is that he thought the idea of god and its concomitants were an illusion, but that is not all that religion comprises.

More important, Dan certainly did NOT believe that free will was a fantasy: Dan was a compatibilist who didn’t believe in libertarian free will, but wrote two books and several other papers and half of another book defending the idea that free will was not a fantasy, but that we did indeed have it: it was, he said, simply different from what most people thought.

Dan and I disagreed strongly on Dan’s compatibilism (Sam Harris disagreed as well), but free will being a fantasy? Nope.

Finally, yes, Dan concentrated on natural selection as the only process that could produce the appearance of adaptation, but didn’t deny, as I recall, the fact that genetic drift could cause some evolutionary change. (For a rather critical review of his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by my ex-student Allen Orr, go here.) But Dan concentrated on adaptations, including human behaviors, because the appearance of design, for centuries imputed to God, is what really demands explanation.

(*Note the misplacement of “only” in the subheading; it should appear after “explained,” not after “could”. Where are the proofreaders?)

At any rate, here’s an excerpt from the NYT that is more accurate than the subheading:

Daniel C. Dennett, one of the most widely read and debated American philosophers, whose prolific works explored consciousness, free will, religion and evolutionary biology, died on Friday in Portland, Maine. He was 82.

His death, at Maine Medical Center, was caused by complications of interstitial lung disease, his wife, Susan Bell Dennett, said. He lived in Cape Elizabeth, Maine.

Mr. Dennett combined a wide range of knowledge with an easy, often playful writing style to reach a lay public, avoiding the impenetrable concepts and turgid prose of many other contemporary philosophers. Beyond his more than 20 books and scores of essays, his writings even made their way into the theater and onto the concert stage.

But Mr. Dennett, who never shirked controversy, often crossed swords with other famed scholars and thinkers.

An outspoken atheist, he at times seemed to denigrate religion. “There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion,” he said in a 2013 interview with The New York Times.

According to Mr. Dennett, the human mind is no more than a brain operating as a series of algorithmic functions, akin to a computer. To believe otherwise is “profoundly naïve and anti-scientific,” he told The Times.

For Mr. Dennett, random chance played a greater role in decision-making than did motives, passions, reasoning, character or values. Free will is a fantasy, but a necessary one to gain people’s acceptance of rules that govern society, he said.

And on free will:

His first book to attract widespread scholarly notice was “Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology,” published in 1978.

In it, Mr. Dennett asserted that multiple decisions resulted in a moral choice and that these prior, random deliberations contributed more to the way an individual acted than did the ultimate moral decision itself. Or, as he explained:

“I am faced with an important decision to make, and after a certain amount of deliberation, I say to myself: ‘That’s enough. I’ve considered this matter enough and now I’m going to act,’ in the full knowledge that I could have considered further, in the full knowledge that the eventualities may prove that I decided in error, but with the acceptance of responsibility in any case.”

Some leading libertarians criticized Mr. Dennett’s model as undermining the concept of free will: If random decisions determine ultimate choice, they argued, then individuals aren’t liable for their actions.

Mr. Dennett responded that free will — like consciousness — was based on the outdated notion that the mind should be considered separate from the physical brain. Still, he asserted, free will was a necessary illusion to maintain a stable, functioning society.

“We couldn’t live the way we do without it,” he wrote in his 2017 book, “From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds.” “If — because free will is an illusion — no one is ever responsible for what they do, should we abolish yellow and red cards in soccer, the penalty box in ice hockey and all the other penalty systems in sports?”

First of all, the notion of a separation between mind and body is not “outdated”: a huge number of people believe in libertarian free will: that your mind alone can, at any given moment, allow you to make any one of two or more choices. It’s outdated among scientists and philosophers, but not among the general public, as surveys have shown.

Further, “random decisions” aren’t really random to either libertarians or determinists. Even Libet-like experiments show that what you do is to some degree predictable using fMRI, and is probably entirely predictable if we had a complete understanding of the brain. No determinist argues that decisions are “random”, as they’re based on the pattern of your neurons produced by your genes and your environment. And libertarians would argue that decisions aren’t random, for if we were we’d have no ability to predict what anybody we know does. Finanly, determinists don’t claim that individuals aren’t liable for their actions. They are liable, but not in the way that most people think. If somebody murders someone else, we don’t just let him go and say, “well, he wasn’t responsible for the killing.”

Do note that Dennett is credited with believing something that I always maintained: he favored compatibilism, at least in part, because of “belief in belief”: without belief in some kind of free will, he said, society would fall apart (he said that at least twice):

Mr. Dennett responded that free will — like consciousness — was based on the outdated notion that the mind should be considered separate from the physical brain. Still, he asserted, free will was a necessary illusion to maintain a stable, functioning society.

But if religion is also thought necessary by some (not Dennett) as necessary to maintain a stable, society, then why is free will TRULY necessary to maintain a stable, functioning society? Perhaps our feeling of free will is necessary for that, but, like religion, that’s a delusion that we simply can’t avoid feeling. I function very well even though I’m a hard determinist, even though I feel like I have a choice. And, in the last sentence, I don’t think one can characterize Dan’s view of free will as an “illusion”. He argued strenuously for a form of free will that was not an illusion.

But I digress. Dan was an important figure in bringing philosophy and Darwinism to educated readers. How often do philosophers produce bestselling popular works?  Yes, he could be wrong, and the force of his personality led some to adopt what I thought were erroneous ideas (like “we have the kind of free will worth wanting”), but more often his arguments were cogent, important, and vividly expressed.

And Dan was a nice guy, one who befriended me when I was just a stripling. One thing missing from the NYT piece—and something I hope they’ll add—are quotations from Dennett’s friends and colleagues. Where, for instance, is an assessment by Richard Dawkins? I expect that will appear on Richard’s Substack site, but we needed some quotes for the NYT obit. Here’s Richard’s tweet about Dan’s death:

You can find other obituaries at the Torygraph, at Ars Technica, and at the Daily Nous, which is short but has a recent video interview, which I put below. And I’d recommend reading his recent autobiography, I’ve Been Thinking.

 

Memoriam for Francisco Ayala by John Avise

March 6, 2023 • 8:15 am

Evolutionary geneticist Francisco José Ayala died yesterday, and although obituaries are beginning to appear, they’re all in Spanish (e.g., here and here). I expect the American press will catch up shortly. In the meantime, I asked his student and colleague John Avise (who posts bird photos here each Sunday) to write a personal account of his memories of Ayala. Here’s what John sent, posted with permission:

I was deeply saddened to learn of the recent passing of Francisco J. Ayala, a gentleman scientist with very European tastes and manners.

I knew Francisco for nearly five decades, first as his PhD student at University of California at Davis in the early 1970’s and much later as his friend and colleague at U.C. Irvine beginning in 2005.  Francisco’s early training as a Dominican priest in his native home of Spain, and soon thereafter as an evolutionary geneticist advised by Theodosius Dobzhansky at Columbia University in New York, combined to give Francisco a uniquely international and interdisciplinary perspective on life that led to his reputation as a brilliant intellectual, a true Renaissance Man.  His oversized impacts on the field of evolutionary genetics and the intersection of science and religion are well documented, so here I will limit my comments to a few more personal experiences.

I will most remember Francisco as a generous, honest, honorable, and openly warm-hearted mentor who loved people and genuinely cared about the wellbeing of his students and colleagues.  Francisco slept little and wrote extensively, always in longhand.  He traveled and lectured widely, especially in Europe where he is perhaps even better known than in the U.S.  During his long career, Francisco received an extraordinary number of honors and accolades, for which he always expressed surprise and great gratitude.  In what became almost a ritual between us, each year I would beg him to write his autobiography, to which he would jokingly reply that he didn’t want to subject himself to that much introspection.

He took special pleasure in his ‘hobby’, owning and operating a vineyard from which emerged delicious wines that= he frequently shared with his friends, keeping us well supplied.  Although our scientific foci differed considerably, in many respects I personally regarded Francisco almost as a second father figure.  Indeed, to a considerable degree, his overarching concern with human affairs inspired me to write two of my own books on human genetics.  I will miss Francisco sorely, as will the fields of biology and philosophy writ large.

A photo of Ayala from the NYT:

Photo: Chas Metivier

Heather Hastie died

February 4, 2023 • 11:45 am

It’s with tremendous sorrow that I report the death in New Zealand of my friend Heather Hastie, who passed away at 5:30 a.m. Friday New Zealand time after a bout with cancer. She was only 59 years old, and left this world peacefully, with her family by her side.

Heather appeared on this website often, for we were of like mind: rationalist, science loving, and thoroughly atheistic. Her website, Heather’s Homilies, was a haven of good sense, and I often called attention to her posts, which became increasingly rare over the last few years. On her “About Me” page she describes her medical woes, starting with a hockey injury when young, which led to spinal surgeries, and, ironically, to her creating her website as a way of connecting with the world when she was largely immobile.

We became friends the way Grania and I became friends: I noticed an exceptionally keen mind in the blogosphere who was also a liberal nonbeliever, and we began exchanging emails. And, as with Grania, that led to Skyping, which for several years took place once a week or so. We had long chats about everything: politics, New Zealand, our personal woes, food, and so on. I often asked her advice, particularly about feminism, for she was an ardent advocate for women’s rights, and sometimes I vetted my posts by showing them to her before I published them. Talking to her was always a pleasant break for me, and I think Heather enjoyed our interactions, too.  She eventually adopted a neighbor’s cat, who she named Reilly: a gray tabby who she spoiled rotten. Many times I’d insist on her putting the cat on video to say “hi”.

When I finally got to New Zealand in 2017, I of course visited Heather in her small town of Taumarunui on NZ’s North Island, and I spent several pleasant days in her company. Although it was difficult for her to get around, she insisted on showing me the area, including trips to the mountains, the famous glowworm caves, and wildlife parks. We had a great time and promised to see each other again on my next visit to New Zealand. It was, I hoped, to take place not long from now.

Sadly, that second meeting will never happen.  Again like Grania, Heather has departed way too young, leaving a big hole in my existence, and of course in that of her friends and family.  During the pandemic, both of us became more hermitic and the frequency of our calls waned, probably because it, like everything else, became a huge effort to arrange things. We last Skyped five months ago, and it was clear then that she was not doing great. She hadn’t written on her website, and said that she didn’t feel well.  The next I heard was that she was in the hospital with an undiagnosed malady. It was quickly diagnosed as stomach cancer, and deemed terminal.  They gave her at most three months to live, and that was about a month ago. She went into hospice care, and I got the sad news this morning.

Heather made no bones about her lack of religious belief, so although there will likely be a memorial service for her, and it may be livestreamed (stay tuned), she would not want any palaver about “going to a better place.” Where she stays will be in our memories, but that’s all we have, and it’s an inferior substitute for the woman herself.

Farewell, my friend, and Ceiling Cat speed to you. My only hope now is that, knowing how deeply she loved her cat Reilly, someone will be taking good care of it, for I know that that would be one of her greatest wishes.

If there is a streamed memorial service, I’ll let you know.

I would put up a picture of Heather, but I have only one, and she made me promise never to show it to anyone or put it on my site. (Like many of us, she didn’t like the way her photos looked.) So I will respect her wishes and not show it now, but I will always picture her sitting in her special orthopedic, mechanically-tilting easy chair, computer on her lap and the inevitable can of lemon soda by her side. I imagine she would have had an insightful take on Jacinda Ardern’s stepping down as the Kiwi Prime Minister, for we talked about Ardern often. But Heather was nearly gone when Ardern made her announcement.

All I can say is that New Zealand’s titer of insight, rationality, and sanity has palpably dropped in the last few days. My deep condolences to her friends and family.