n Dear Professor,
n I am very sorry to hear that you found my text inapplicable to what you have written. It still seems to me, however, that I argued with you, not with an imaginary author.
n Your counterarguments reassure me of this. Because –
a) I have included the chapter titled “What do we not know about values?” and I stated that you delineated the overall structure of values. That I am not satisfied with it is a different matter.
b) the fact that I did not read the second part of “Betrachtungen …” does not change the validity of my arguments. Firstly, because one always writes rebus instantibus, secondly, fully appreciating that eight meanings (XXX I am awaiting) is objectively more than six I have the right to choose a specific state of this concept, namely what takes place here is already a dispute, not infidelity to your thought. If the copy arrives, I will include additional information in the footnote.
c) that the whole volume is a collection of sketches, that you indicate the differences of the same qualities in their different shapes – I have emphasized. But it is undisputed that you did not explain those differences – using the same terms – you did not make them clear, so my complaint is well founded.
d) Finally, that your book is intellectual stimulation for further axiological developments is the main thought throughout my sketch.
n Hence, in the absence of other counterarguments, I think I can and should publish such a text. I devoted a lot of time to your book. I wrote a sketch with the deepest intention of starting a dialogue and not delving into criticism per fas et nefas. In addition – considering our many years of correspondence, I wanted and would still like you to answer some key discussion points. Finally, this sketch consists for the most part of my reflections, rather than “attacks” on your thought. In fact, I am no longer intellectually amused by pure polemics… I am glad, because as I understood from your letter you have accepted the general tendency of the sketch as an authentic testimony of my “assimilation” of your thought. Assimilation, which must be a modification, because the starting points are different, but there is a chance of the concepts getting closer which I do not see between you and, for example, Pelc.
n You promised me a copy on Wellek and I am waiting for the second part of “Betrachtungen”. I will come to your very interesting lecture if I am in the country. During that time, I am supposed to go to the GDR on behalf of the Warsaw Univ. In any case, I kindly ask you to give me the paper you will be presenting for the 6th volume of Aesthetic Studies. We are passing the fifth to PWN Publishing in June, the fourth will be out in 2-3 weeks.
n One more thing. The Faculty Council Meeting will be taking place on June 6. Is it possible for you to send in Graff’s review by then? The next one will only be on 6/27. The defense commission will have to be moved to July (very doubtful !!); will the defense happen in the end? And Graff has a deadline of 9/30.
n Stefan Morawski
P.S. My wife sends her warm greetings. We like you dearly and would like to ask you to remember about us each time you stay in Warsaw.