Dear Cyndy,

Thank you for the diagnostic information.  I can't remember
in my eight years of medical training and six years of
general practice, ever having encountered a patient with
Henoch-Schoenlein purpura, and all I can boast of is book-
learning about the disease.  I'm glad that you're better;
I commonly importune my patients with the platitude that
diseases can not only get worse by themselves, but that
they often get better; and that I would rather forgo the
credit for improvement on my watch, if I don't have to
accept the blame if things get worse.

It pleases me that my preoccupation with the dialectic of
fascism and anarchy has struck a responsive chord with you.
I am mindful that nowadays everything I write or say, is
tainted with the risk of repetitiveness, for the obvious
reason that my memory has lost its tenacity, a circumstance
which, as I keep emphasizing, is not all bad: it makes day-
to-day vicissitudes much easier to tolerate.  Again repeating
myself, I interpret the conflict between individual and
society as the fundamental latter day challenge to our
intellect; just as centuries ago that challenge was, in
Plato's words, the "imprisonment" of the divine soul in
the earthly body.  Indeed one might meaningfully parody
Plato, pointing out that while in antiquity the human
experience was perceived as that of a soul imprisoned in
its body, so the contemporary experience is that of the
individual imprisoned in society, with the obvious parallel
that in both cases the individual soul is dependent on that
within which it is confined.

It seems plausible to correlate the tensions and pressures
of the societal relationship with the increasing population
density and with the progressive efficiencies of modern
communication which make that density even more consequential.
Furthermore it seems to me that abstract thought, far from
being a useless waste of effort, has in fact had a decisive
role in the progressive transformation of human existence
in the course of centuries and millenia, transformation such
as is chronicled by the professional historian.  It is
inconceivable that the "objectivity" which characterizes
modern intellectual pursuits, both the natural sciences
(Naturwissenschaften) and the "moral" sciences
(Geisteswissenschaften), could have evolved in the absence
of the culture of subjectivity, without the care and feeding
of the soul which became the preoccupation of "philosophers"
poets, musicians, and in general of all artists throughout
the millenia subsequent to the Socratic revolution. 
Similarly for us it is unavoidable and obligatory to wrestle
with what we perceive as the incongruity and conflict between
the individual and society.

I find in the myths of Christianity, the Gospel, Evangelium,
the "Good News", persuasive confirmation of my interpretation.
The Passion of Christ is the dramatization of the conflict
between the individual as the Son of God, a designation
emblematic of each person's unique identification with deity,
and the social order entrenched in the law as it purported
to control the lives - and spirits of its subjects.  Jesus is
portrayed as the primordial anarchist, bent on "destroying
the temple", dissolving the existing social order, the ultimate
crime against society, punishment for which is crucifixion,
the utmost suffering and degradation that the state can inflict
on the individual, that society can inflict on its members.
It is the ultimate societal paradox that the anarchist should
emerge as hitherto unrecognized deity.

I am much taken with this construction, which explains,
I believe, the social, political "success" of Christianity.
The "truth" of Christianity, accordingly, is not something
that requires to be "taken on faith".  The "truth of Christianity"
derives from its sublimation in myth of the most profound
perplexity of human existence: the irreconcilable conflict
between the individual and society.  I explain the overwhelming
attraction exercised by Christianity by the circumstance that
the myth gives expression to an otherwise almost intolerable
conflict. For many of its adherents that religion may make the
conflict bearable, even when religion is powerless to resolve
the conflict, and indeed, even when public religion exacerbates
the conflict, as it does, personally, in my case.

Now, having had to wade through all that unasked for exposition,
don't you regret having urged me to escape from my legal-bureaucratic
entaglements into "literature"? But on this score also, I ask,
albeit politely, to have the last word. I consider the memoranda
and motions which I will be composing as a form of creative writing,
and the interpretations of the statutes and prior decisions as 
exercises in philology and literary criticism. When I construe the
ambiguities and contradictions of the Massachusetts General Laws
I am mindful of the spirit of Werner Jaeger hovering over me,
trying to teach how one untangles the many uncertainties
in the received manuscripts of the Metaphysics. I'm not exaggerating:
My lawsuit will succeed only if I can persuade the courts that
my interpretation of the statute is more valid than that of the
Plumbers. For me, it's thrilling as an academic competition.

The case hinges on the interpretation of but a single definition:
"Journeyman plumber, a person who himself does any work in plumbing
and gas fitting." All persons to whom this definition applies are
prohibited from doing any work in plumbing without a permit. The
issue: did this definition apply to me when I installed the plumbing
on Nantucket?

I shall point out to the Court that the statute uses two terms
when referring to plumbing activities: It speaks of persons doing
"work in plumbing". I shall argue that a person who does "work"
is a workman; but that I am not a workman. That this statute
and all other Massachusetts statutes creating "Boards of Registration"
intend and require only the registration of persons who offer their
services to the public as professionals or tradesmen. When the
statute addresses also the activities of non-professionals and
non-tradesmen, i.e. of private persons, it uses the term "engage in
plumbing." My argument: that I engaged in plumbing as my hobby
and recreation, that not not being a workman, what I did cannot be
considered "work in plumbing" and is not subject to the requirement
of a permit.

I shall also point out to the Court that when this statute was enacted
in 1892, plumbing methods were so clumsy and arduous that it is 
implausible that the General Court should have found it necessary
to probibit private persons from becoming workmen who did work in plumbing.
Specifically, drainage and venting were accomplished only with the use
of very heavy cast iron pipes which were joined with seals of molten
lead; water was supplied through pipes of galvanized steel which
had to be cut and threaded with cumbersome, expensive machinery
that required heavy physical labor. It is incongruous to assume that
in 1892 the General Court should have made a point of prohibiting
activities that could not practically be carried out. What the General
Court sought to prevent was that workmen who were not Master Plumbers
or Journeymen Plumbers or Apprentice Plumbers should equip themselves
with the requisite tools and install plumbing as a sideline to their
carpentry or masonry or other non-plumbing work. With the introduction
of soldered copper tubing for supply, and glued PVC pipes for drainage,
plumbing became much, much simpler and easier, so much so, that it
became economical for persons who were not workmen to install their
own plumbing. It became profitable for home improvement stores
such as "Home Depot" to encourage their customers to perform,
among other things, their own plumbing. Their exhortation
"You can do it, We can help." proved to be an effective advertising
slogan. Had the General Court wished to prohibit plumbing by
individuals in their own behalf, it could surely have amended
to law to that effect, and it could have prohibited the sale of
plumbing supplies to non-plumbers; it might have written:
"No person shall engage in plumbing without a permit," but it
failed to do so.

In 1977, the General Court did amend the law; but the amendment,
far from making the law more restrictive, relaxed then existing
constraints. Specifically, the definition of "Journeyman Plumber"
then in effect was "a person who himself does any work in plumbing."
This definition was deleted and replaced as follows.  "Journeyman
plumber, a person who himself does any work in plumbing and gas fitting." 
While prior to 1977, a workman who "himself does and work in plumbing"
was prohibited from doing so unless he had a license, after 1977,
this probibition was lifted unless he also did work in gas fitting.
I.e. a workman who did work only in plumbing and did not represent
himself as a plumber by trade was no longer prohibited from doing work
in plumbing unless he also did work in gas fitting. The logic seems
to me inescapable. Of all words in the English language "and" is one
of the least ambiguous. "and" does nor mean "or". "I owe you five dollars
AND fifty cents," is not the same as "I owe you five dollars OR fifty
cents. Even if the Court found me to be a workman doing work in plumbing,
I don't see it stretching the truth to find that I did work in gas 
fitting in a house which has no gas. And workmanship aside, since in
a house without gas, I couldn't do work in gas fitting, in a house
without gas I couldn't do work in plumbing and gas fitting. Therefore
in a house without gas I couldn't be deemed a journeyman plumber, q.e.d.

Meanwhile my computer programming efforts have hit a snag, in that the
4 channel video capture board which I ordered and which was delivered
proved to be of incorrect design. It didn't work for me and it didn't
work for other purchasers whose complaints I have subsequently
discovered on the Internet. I have made arrangements to return it.
Yesterday, I made three trips to "Microcenter", the computer supermarket
on the banks of the Charles near the B.U. Bridge in Cambridge. You
guessed it: The first board that I purchased didn't work in my machine.
The second board didn't work either. As soon as I removed the circuit
board from its envelope, I saw that, although it has been packaged in
a different box, and sold under a different brand name, it was identical
with the one I had just taken back.  The second board likewise had to be
returned. Hence the third trip.  I spent last evening scouring the
Internet for a replacement, and this morning I ordered a capture card
from what looks like a reputable company. The card will take ten days
to cross the continent from California, and there's no chance that I
will be ready to take the computer when Klemens and I go over a week
from Sunday to check on the house.

Thank you for reading all this. Stay well. Stay away from the medical
profession in all guises, and give my best to Ned.

Jochen