v Dearest Professor,
v I am so glad that you are not upset with me. The issue of interpreting someone else’s thoughts is difficult:
- You can assume the same point of view as the author – when you present one’s thought you must do that
- You can judge one’s thought from your own point of view, when you are expressing your own position. Just like you did with Husserl (which he did not agree with either) or I do with you whenever I am not merely presenting your thoughts (which you do not agree with).
v As for Gadamer, both you and I do not agree with it, as he completely failed to understand you and I was indignant that he added me to his footnote, but I could not protest because the corrected version was long in the on its way.
v Anyway, this needs to be rectified and it seems to me that it would be wonderful if you contributed this part of your lecture in Oslo on Husserl’s transcendence to my volume on Husserl (where the interpretations will be confronted). (this volume is on the latest research on Husserl, mainly created “on request” so reprinting from other works is out of the question). Please let me know quickly whether you will allow this part of your work to become a component of this volume so I can plan other contributions in accordance with that decision. (can be 40-100 pages)
I will end here for now, with cordial greetings from all of us
PS. My work on the treatise on creativity and a new work on “material ontology” is in full swing. I have an assistant, which helps me in my research.
PS 2. Do you wish to receive such certification from Switzerland? Just let me know and it will be arranged in a flash.