Letter from Anna Teresa Tymieniecka written 14.09.1969



148 Payson Rd. September 14, 1968
Belmont Mass.

Dearest Professor,
How nice it was to see you again, but in such a chaos it is difficult to enter into any substantive conversation. That is why I am writing to you now to return to the discussions we have started.
v     I° Well, since Professor graciously promised participation in the Husserl Congress in Waterloo, the matter really takes a fundamental turn. General information first. Date: April 10 Topic: “The later Husserl and The Idea of Phenomenology”. (I wanted a more specific topic that would fit both you and me – but unfortunately no one else – a bit better, but I agreed to compromise on this one, as everything can be related to it.)
v     To please my colleagues, , apart from you, I have invited Mr. Gadamer, Ricoeur, etc. to participate (but not in the main roles!).
v     So I am asking you for personal cooperation in devising the program and participation. You have to appease: I° our own tendencies, i. e. the fundamental “deheideggerization” of Husserl and thorough criticism (also positive). Do you agree with me? If not, please voice your objections. 2° the reclaiming of and raising the importance of research and results of phenomenologists from Göttingen Schule (i.e. ingardenism, etc.) 3° It is also necessary, I think, in the spirit of 2° to sort out the relation of phenomenology to a) natural sciences (which is important for me personally), b) methods, language, issues of truth, etc., i.e. “hermeneutics”.
v     So I was thinking that we could organize: 2 plenary sessions devoted to Husserl or I° and 2° which would feature you, Kokelmans (“Two interpretations of Husserl “) and ???.
v     II two study and discussion groups:
v     a) “Phen. and science “(Ricoeur on Freud maybe, de Wachlens, Chisholm, Forbes, etc. ??)
v     b) “Hermeneutics” (Gadamer, Kuipers? and ??
v     What do you think about this? Please think about what we coud change, add. And above all who to invite for I° and 2°. It is not an easy feat.
v     And this is supposed to be a breakthrough congress, as the you can reckon from my intentions, so I am begging for your mind’s cooperation.
v     What is that Swedish Ingardenologist who wrote about you called? What do you think about Bednarski? De Boer? Biemel? Böhm?
v     Should I invite van Breda?
v     Klibansky enthusiastically supports this congress, meaning he will help financially (I already have quite a bit of funds).
v     Please let go of your usual distrust of me (I do not deserve it because I am absolutely honest, loyal and faithful; if people do not like me it is because I am persistent and uncompromising) and honestly help me in this because it could be a major opportunity to get phenomenology out the confusion and chaos surrounding it. (I personally care about that very much as it can only be on clear and serious phenomenological basis that  I can hope to further develop and disseminate my ideas. That is why I have been lecturing Husserl every year for many years.) There is a throng of young researchers who are lost in this chaos and they need someone to pave the way for them.

I am waiting impatiently for a speedy and substantial answer. Love Teresa

348 Payson Rd., Belmont, Mass. USA
v     It will be “Our” congress!
v     Although I do not think that I am worthy to be put together with Ingarden, but I know better what is lying within me and I can assure you that in a dozen or so years, when I finally work it out, this “our” will be justified (of course if I live that long) .


I am returning to the States the day after tomorrow. Best regards to Madam and Mr. And Mrs. Janusz.