Letter from Stefan Morawski written N/D 4

 n       Dear Professor,
 n       n      I have read your paper with great interest and learned a lot again. It seems to be the best and clearest out of all your discussions on values. For me, personally, your unambiguous arguments for objectivity were especially interesting, and seemed stronger than those in your statements [for] the relationship between the work with the aesthetical object made to date.
 n       n      The passage about objectivity and subjectivity is on pp. 26-32. I do not think it could be omitted. However, I am asking you to accept its shortening by means of reducing footnotes on pages 2, 3, 4 (in part), 14, 16, 25, 28, 30. This way we can gain 1,5 pages.
 n       n      I suggest you make some minor corrections on pages 1, 19, 28, 29, 34 – marked with “ü”. If the suggestions are incorrect, please forgive me…
 n       n      The question mark (“?”), in turn, marks the ambiguities of the text on pages 13, 14, 21, 34.
 n       n      Please leave the text for me with Mr. Gołaszewska on Saturday morning – at the Faculty of Philosophy’s Dean’s Office. If you cannot come in the morning, but only after lunch – please leave it at the gatehouse with Mr. Bień who always receives my mail.
 n       n      Thank you again for the paper. It is sure to be the best contribution to the volume.

Best regards
 n      S Morawski


P.S. I am not commenting on the subject matter of your work, although a) there are now striking convergences between certain points of reflections leading to what is contained in the first volume of my “Introduction to aesthetics” with what you write [framework of valuable qualities – I and II] and b) obvious differences and clear oppositions. But I would have to write a long, long letter… no time for that, and you also do not have enough of it to write back to me. It is a pity, because such correspondence would be a fact beyond personal.

I rewrote the excerpt with “phenomenological mask”. You are right. In this context, it is just a literary phrase. I will remove it if there is a new edition. But maintain the thought itself. Allegoricalism of phenomenology is its main drawback. And no phenomenologist-aesthetician could manage to combine the eidetic methodology with the historical approach