Dear Marion,

This note in accordance with my determination to write
what is on my mind, when it's on my mind, and not to
try to shelve my thoughts until tomorrow.

Thank you very much for your "this is not a letter" non-letter;
I infer that you have mastered the art of dialectic.
Don't bother writing letters, non-letters will do just fine.

About the possibility of the suggestion to Heinz that he divorce
Marga, I have the following comments:
Your apology for Margot is affectionate, generous and
persuasive; but I'm not sure it's even necessary, since
a) The lawyer in me ignores hearsay evidence,
b) The historian in me considers all history to be myth,
c) The poet in me understands that truth is transcendental,
i.e. that truth is not defined by words, can not be stated
in what the Logical Positivists call "Protocol Sentences."
Words are mere pointers to truth which itself eludes verbal
definition. c.f. Rilke's: "Das was geschieht hat einen solchen
Vorsprung vor unserm Meinen, dass wir's nie einholen, und nie
erfahren wie es wirklich aussah." (Requiem fuer Kalckreuth)
d) The theologian in me refrains from judgment: "Judge not
that ye be not judged." and understands that according to
Isaiah the "sinner", "who was despised and we esteemed him not",
is the messenger from God. 
Ergo: Margot has a primal claim on affection, not only yours,
but mine also, and requires no apology.

I am appearing before the Massachusetts Appeals Court in defense
of Do-It-Yourself plumbing. I am also a passionate practitioner
of Do-It-Yourself theology. That theology concerns itself only
with Judaism and Christianity, and concludes that the two are
in fact but a single religion and no intelligent and sensitive
person will purport to separate them. At the core of that unitary
religion is the Mosaic redefinition of deity as invisible and
ineffable, thereby removing all that is holy from the realm of
public, outward objectivity, and concealing it as private, inward
and subjective. To the extent that the distinction between objectivity
and subjectivity in religious experience is sustained, the divisive
question, whether Jesus is "God" is meaningless. The objective
experience of him cannot be, and the subjective experience of him
must be of the divine. The historical sequel to the Judaic discovery
of the divine is strictly analogous to the historical sequel of
the Christian re-discovery of the divine. In both sequels I recognize
the dialectic in that social and political necessity serves as an
antithesis, which obviates the thesis and leaves us with the messy
synthesis of historical religiosity. If one looks closely, one may
interpret the Jewish law as the social and political antithesis of
the Mosaic definition of deity, - because the Law makes what is holy
and inward to become objective and outward. The appearance of Jesus
as the "fulfillment" of the Law then serves to dissolve the historical
antithesis and to confirm the original Mosaic definition of deity
as inwardness. To the extent, however, that Christianity subsequently
becomes a public religion, it destroys itself and requires us to start
over again - with Moses. q.e.d.

I doubt that you wanted to know that much, but that's what you get
for writing non-letters.

Jochen