Honoured Professor = I thank you warmly for the letter and remarks that I always accept with an open heart. Of course, please do not suspect me of megalopaedia because of the introduction of the concept of the “five original antiphilonists.” – This was an obvious joke. For now, I wish to say a few words á propos my critique of Wittgenstein. Not every author or work deserves to be written about: not every snardz (= a fella in my “language” – oh, those “languages”, what the hell) can write a work about any given snardz. I am propagating a new type of criticism (like light tanks, or former light cavalry) that I would call marginal-notecritique in English. For this, however, one must have a finished and determined own view. It is not based on the “synthesis” of a given snardz but on comparing him with oneself against the background of various problems. For example, in rel[ation] to Wgs. [Wittgenstein] I do not get into all the symbology. I do not mind him, but the logic from my point of view. I have not encountered this type criticism and I would like to popularise it. Because I think that we do not have to limit ourselves to known types and assume that what does not fall into a given pattern is of no value (I only mean the form of criticism, which does not determine its essential value). I think that in general it is clear from my work that Wgs. [Wittgenstein] is not-selfconsistent, and I present myself to the reader, too. I believe that criticism from an unspecified point is detrimental; in this way there are two fellas [snardzes] to be compared. For now, that’s all. I dream about you visiting in the summer. And maybe indeed – you also need this for your health.
I enclose words of respect, affection and gratitude, F.G. [family greetings]
(written on the envelope)
P.S. I prefer light criticism written from a very specific point of view than a critical “work” whose author is a nebula without a central star.