Dear Cyndy,

In a recent letter you commented on the differences in friendships,
specifically among men and among women. The title of the novel,
Die Freunde, suggests that friendship is the central topic of my efforts.
I consider the subject extraordinarily inchoate, ranging all the way
from the anonymous associations of political party members united by
a common cause, to the passionate, assertative friendship addressing
Jesus, "Du aber bist, und bleibst mein Freund." (But you, you are
and will remain my friend) in which 16th and 17th century mystics
were accustomed to revel. I try contemplate the dilemma from a
naturalist's point of view: We're all dependent on one another, and
we all have great need for independence and solitude; and we can't
have it both ways. These are issues I want to explore in my novel.
The only thing I'm sure of is that I'll find no answers.

Thank you for your last letter which raises several important issues.
My recurrent recommendations that you NOT read what I am writing
are sincere, with only a minimum of irony. I'm much aware of the
imperfections in my texts. When I write something which I consider
really really good, I'll announce it clearly: you'll hear the trumpets
and the drums!

My other consideration is psychological; you'll accept the
imperfections of what I write more readily when, in the context
of my disclaimers, you read not because I ask you to, not as a
favor to me, but because your reading is an expression of your
wish. You want to find something, whatever it may be. You find it
and are satisfied. You're beyond that stage in your life where you
read all sorts of mediocre stuff, because that's what you get
paid for.

As for the substance of chapter 51, a) it's only about 50 percent
complete, b) I'm much embarrassed by the surfeit of theory in lines
300-602 of Chapter 51 (e051.html) which I sent you. But if I'm 
passionate about that theory, I must first develop it for cogency, 
consistency and meaning. I'm much aware of the circumstance that
most readers will NOT be passionate about those ideas and will find
them irrlevant if not distracting.

I haven't been reading much Plato recently. I keep a copy of the
Symposium in the glove compartment of the red Dodge, to read while
I'm waiting to have the oil changed or waiting for some other
reason. Many of the dialogues I haven't read since I took Raphael
Demos' course on Plato as a sophomore. Some of the dialogues, I
remember especially the Timaeus, I found terribly boring. Werner
Jaeger confessed to me when he was giving me my private tutorial
on the Protagoras, that he had just then been reading Plato's Laws
I believe for the first time. They have a reputation for being
very dull. Imagine his having composed those three volumes of Paideia
on the ideals of Greek culture without serious (or any) consideration
of Plato's Laws!

But I'm digressing. Paranoid notions, such as that I am Plato are
symptoms of schizophrenia, for which I'm much too old now; but it
may indeed be a sign of senility that theoretical questions ARE of
passionate interest to me, and that I want to play with them even
if I consider them insoluble, and maybe just for that reason. What
I tried to do in those last 300 lines that I sent you, was to
dissolve the argument into contrapuntal voices, having Mengs and
Joachim as it were play intellectual tennis. I know I haven't
succeeded at all, but I think it's worth another try.

Beyond the simple tossing back and forth of ideas, I want to devise
a social matrix in which epistemology becomes practical, where verbal
statements, logical propositions such as are uttered in daily life
may be examined for their truth. This morning, as I awoke, it occurred
to me that I can easily resurrect the legal case about the do-it-yourselfer
which Joachim read the night of their imprisonment, and about which he
dreamed. That case should provide a lot of epistemological grist.
If I could get admitted to cooking school with Charlotte, I could
explore the epistemology of cooking, a topic with an ironic twist,
since Plato made such a fuss contrasting the rationality of the physician
with the irrationality of the cook. Had he known about FDA and CMS and
all the medical cookbook guidelines now in fashion, he would have given
up on that distinction. I acknowledge that my present theoretical
expositions are stylistically unsatisfactory, and I'll try to improve
them, though I don't yet know how. On the other hand, I know it's a
long way in the other direction to compete with Immanuel Kant.

As for the Schopenhauer cache of 20 Dollar bills, I'm far from finished
with it.  Having refused to participate in the scheme because she can't
contemplate making a contribution, Charlotte still can't resist the
temptation of money, and for the first time since it's inception, that
unmonitored money supply is going to be depleted.  The "ethical"
conundrums precipitated will be a real test of Joachim and Jonathan and
of their ethics theories. Another perspective I want to explore is the
analogy between the needs for financial privacy and the need for sexual
privacy. (For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Luke 12:34)

Again, my best wishes to you and Ned. As an afterthought, perhaps I
shouldn't have expected you to read this letter either. Should I perhaps
devise a retroactive disclaimer, and ask you to consider this letter
unread?

Jochen