She was wrestling, essentially with a holographic projection, a field within which the reality of old age, mortality and life expectancy was being 'known' (projected as a belief) by herself, the body as a belief structure and all those she knew or conceived as having the same beliefs.
From within, this looks like an insuperable number of viewpoints agreeing in different ways to the same theme. And there are many such themes that make up the sluggish, unyielding persistency we deal with in normal social life.
So one could conceive one had an endless task, undoing these millions of projecting viewpoints. But this is like skinning a sea-urchin one spine at a time. As there is little else but spines to the beast when first viewed, at least from the viewpoint of the urchin in the middle, this seems formidable.
But there is another view of a sea urchin, namely that it is only one beast, and all one thing.
This is something like the centipede who trips up when asked to explain how he walks. He was doing fine until you asked!
You can sit in the middle and count spines, or you can enjoy exploring the whole urchin as one creation. If there's any left to it after you have let go of your discovery, simply repeat -- sometimes it takes a lot of impressions to make a sea urchin.
Each tendril of the urchin's operation is a creation seemingly endowed from someone's viewpoint. But let me point out that no-one is worried about brilligy here on Earth. No matter how deadly a condition, no-one frets about it because no-one has ever heard of it. So brilligy and the threat of increased brilligy is ignored happily by everyone, which adds some weight to the notion that Conclusive Ignorance may be better than we had thought for tranquillity.
If one person had heard of brilligy, that single tendril would be enough to create a 'brilligy' reality urchin; and if a hundred had heard of it, the brilligy urchin would have a hundred spines. And a critical point would be reached where the spines would start to multiply through inertia without any material linkage between the 'viewpoints' who were subscribing to it. A brilligometer would be invented and brilligomists would pull down Clark Gable's salary. Yet the whole subject could be erased from consciousness with one stroke unless one believed the 'eraser' consciousness was limited in its scope to 'individuality'. Of course, who would ever buy that idea?