Honoured and Dear Professor:
Thank you v[ery] much for the letter and brochures, one of which I read with great joy, and the other – not at all – you know how difficult it is to read [about] literature. I have waded through your great book because it has a philosophical background. I simply shudder at the very expression “literary work”. Wittgenstein’s lack of clarity is terrible. I have already written about 100 pages of critique of this monster. I do not know if I can manage his symbols, but I mean the first assumptions on which symbology is based. As with Whitehead, it was not about the construction of events on the background of the 4-dimensional continuum, but about what it came out of. There are chasms emanating a shadow there. Of course, Busse cannot give much – only this “körperliche” (in the meaning of physics) and “geistige” (as a thought without the basis of images), but the body, however, lies on the side (left). And Aloys Wenzl is v[ery] interesting as an übersicht of all these novelties. I think only monadism offers a solution. Tatarkiewicz has agreed that my reply should appear in one issue with criticism by Kotarbeusz [Kotarbiński].
Czachowski’s address: Kraków, Salwator, Anczyca, 11.
As for March and April, it depends, but this year it should be nice. Something has gone wrong with the regularity of the weather here since the war. And yet, maybe upon the pretext of some articles or readings, you can come here. I would love to do it. I’m writing “Unwashed Souls”, but it’s more for fun.
I enclose words of respect and affection for you both, F.G. [family greetings]