\brief[Neurath an Carnap, Oxford, 17.~Juli 1942]%
{Otto Neurath an Rudolf Carnap, 17. Juli 1942}{Juli 1942}\labelcn{1940-07-17-Neurath-an-Carnap}

\anrede{My dear Carnap (and Carnapesse),}

\haupttext{
We always appreciate very much to get some news from you. We are living here happily in a small house (4 rooms, we are alone) with garden, flowers, fruit, vegetables, a cat visits us from time to time and a dog participates through the railings with remainders of our meals. We have many friends and acquaintances, I am lecturing in various places on Visual Education, Logical Empiricism and on, what is called ``social sciences'' -- they are more ``social'' than ``sciences''. Nevermind \ldots\ The film making business is continuing, we are very successful in that, our first film was purely diagrammatic, now we are making diagrammatic scenes for other films, on food, tuberculosis, etc. The Ministry of Information is presenting them to the public. Some go to the US. I am writing my monograph for the encyclopedia and I think I could improve it very much. -- How I can fit together my arguing on ``true'', ``statements on statements'' etc. with your formulations, I do not know, perhaps you will find a way to put together these various strains. I think in Tarski's\IN{\tarski} and Popper's\IN{\popper} arguings, which much influenced you is an essential metaphysical element of absolutism. But I shall wait for your books.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Er hat also ,,Semantik`` noch nicht.}}.}

Most of the announced booklets and papers arrived, not all of them, Rationale Wirtschaftsbetrachtung fortunately and also one of my little Chinese stories,\fnEE{Neurath hatte mehrere parabelartige Kurzgeschichten publiziert (wiederabgedruckt in Neurath, Var).} the only I have now, but NOT the Cercle de Vienne. If you find a second copy of that, please send it me. In general we are very successful in rebuilding our library, we have some books by Mach\IN{\mach}, Boltzmann\IN{\boltzmann}, etc. of course: Voltaire\IN{\voltaire}, Diderot\IN{\diderot}, Condillac\IN{\condillac} etc., and new books, such as Carnap\incarnap{}, Russell\IN{\russellkurz}, Weinberg\IN{\weinberg}, Stuart Chase\IN{\chase}, etc. The department library\fnA{Original \original{literature}.} is a good one, history, statistics etc. I got most of my own books and even reprints in bookshops, our big atlas e.\,g. we are working as once in May with our three British collaborators. We came just back from a Visual Education meeting in Exeter with people from various parts of the country, including Lancelot Hogben\IN{\hogben}, who referred on his new AUXILIARY language INTERGLOSSA.\fnEE{Siehe Hogben, \textit{Interglossa}.} This and Basic are the only two auxiliar languages which seem worth to account for. The principle is similar to Peano's\IN{\peano} Latina sine flexione, but consistent. It is Chinese based on western roots. Question, imperative, etc. formed by means of particular words\ekl{:} ``que'' means question, then the statement as usual. Very simple. Lancelot Hogben\IN{\hogben} analyzed the language making very carefully, it was for me and also for a philologist who was with us a great pleasure to listen to him. He selected the roots from internationally known words and found out that there are about 2000 such roots. If somebody does not know these roots, it is useful for him to learn them, even for his own language. Let me give some examples\ekl{:} \neueseite{}\zzz MICRO-PHON, PHONO-GRAPH, GRAPHO-LOGY, etc. Hogben\IN{\hogben} says, therefore MICRO means small, GRAPH means writing etc., the roots are mainly greek or latin. A very fine idea. And no IDIOMATIC RULES.

BASIC is fine for reading and listening but not for writing, because you have to learn the idiomatic allowed combinations, that is sometimes more difficult than to learn separate words. This is the weak point in BASIC.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja}}.} Therefore BASIC remains more for reading and listening. INTERGLOSSA is an ideal language for writing scientific things and other things, the examples are very illuminating. The manuscript Hogben's\IN{\hogben} is devoted to Ogden\IN{\ogden}, whose work he much admires.

Please ask MORRIS\IN{\morris} he and you should \textkritik{}\fnA{\original{be}}\zzz allow me to ask Hogben\IN{\hogben} (perhaps together with Ogden\IN{\ogden})\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Hogbens Buch abwarten}}.} to write for our first two volumes of the encyclopedia a monograph FOUNDATIONS OF LANGUAGE MAKING. Hogben\IN{\hogben} is prepared to do it and we shall learn a lot from him about comparative studies of language tools AS TOOLS. I think you are interested in such things very much. I should like to write a short introduction (perhaps you, too?) telling a little about our own problems, and how they are related to that. PLEASE ANSWER TOGETHER WITH MORRIS\IN{\morris} THIS PROPOSAL IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. If you have\fnA{\original{had}} sufficient money send a cable with YES. I am sure this monograph would be a GREAT SHOW. The manuscript of Hogben's\IN{\hogben} book is full of stimulating remarks and you learn more about language in this way than usually. I think that brings LIFE into our business. Perhaps instead of the monograph by Tinbergen\IN{\tinbergen} or another one. I am looking around, what can be done more for our encyclopedia, Journal, library etc. THERE ARE VERY GOOD PROSPECTS, but I shall tell better about that if the\fnA{\original{they}} results of my efforts there are realized. I think we shall perhaps get a kind of centre for our scientific enterprise, as we wish it to get, without any obligations to anybody. I hope so. Wait and see, please. We should not be impatient -- there is a war on and a very serious and difficult one. I am astonished how well scientific work goes on in spite of all that and how many people are supporting our efforts.

I have MINIATURES, ERKENNTNIS (only partly), ENCYCLOPEDIA. I should like to get reprints from other people, too. Please, be a nice fellow and tell that other people. Describe my situation, Hitler's\IN{\hitler} gang has all my reprints, manuscripts etc., therefore I am thankful for all gifts, also for books of course. It is difficult to get American books and periodicals.

Please read again RUSSELL\IN{\russellkurz} and my Aristotelian paper. I shall tell you something in detail and I hope you will answer in detail.~\neueseite{}\medskip

\noindent RUSSELL, MEANING AND TRUTH\fnAmargin{Ksl. am oberen Seitenrand \original{\textsp{Habe Buch nicht hier; werde es später genau studieren und antworten. Ich selbst habe viele Einwände gegen Russell (\unsicher{wie} Nagels kritische Rezension in Journal of Philosopy \ldots), ich stimme mit den meisten Einwänden überein, finde aber, Nagel hätte das Positive im Buch doch auch angeben müssen. Ich glaube, daß Du hier, und ebenso bei Tarski und Popper zu mißtrauisch bist, indem Du Aussagen ablehnst, die vielleicht metaphysisch gemeint sein könnten, aber auch wissenschaftlich interpretiert werden können. Das ist sicher der Fehler mit Tarski und Popper. Über Russell später.}}.}\fnEE{Neuraths im Folgenden angeführte Seitenangaben beziehen sich auf die Ausgabe London 1940. Die eckigen Klammern stammen von Neurath selbst.}\medskip



%\begin{itemize}



[p. 14] he speaks of ``error'' and ``knowledge''\ekl{:} who is in the chair? Russell\IN{\russellkurz} personally?

[p. 15] who is the ``hypothetically inerrant recorder of what actually happens''? We know this type of arguing, Laplace's\IN{\laplace} demon etc.\fnEE{Siehe Anm.~\refcn{laplaceschergeist}.}

[p. 15] ``naive realism'' is a very late stage. A naive man does not know the split\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja}} (auch im 2.~Exemplar).} and therefore not the elimination of the split, the making of the split again etc.

[p. 15] split into person and things, effects made by things etc. -- the old ``duplication'' sufficiently criticized by Avenarius\IN{\avenariusrichard} etc.\fnEE{Nach Avenarius, \textit{Der menschliche Weltbegriff}, setzt sich der ,,natürliche Weltbegriff`` des Menschen aus der Erfahrung zusammen sowie der Hypothese, dass Mitmenschen in ihren Aussagen so wie wir selbst Erfahrungen artikulieren. Das daraus resultierende monistische Bild wird in der Philosophie oder Metaphysik in einer Fehlleistung, die Avenarius als ,,Introjektion`` bezeichnet, verfälscht und verfremdet: Die natürliche Welt wird ,,dupliziert`` zur (falschen) Vorstellung einer geistig-seelischen Welt bzw. einer Welt der Ideen. Neuraths Ausführungen beziehen sich in der Folge immer wieder auf diese der Antimetaphysik des Wiener Kreises nahestehende Denkfigur.}

``observations happening in him'' the same.

[p. 16] ``avoid error'' implies somebody knows what the truth is.\fnAmargin{Ksl. (2.~Exemplar) \original{\textsp{Nein, Russell spricht hier vom behavioristischen Beobachter.}}.}

[p. 22] if that is not TRUTH in the worst style, then I do not know, to what extent you agree with me: ``a proposition may\fnAmargin{Ksl. (2.~Exemplar) \original{\textsp{p.~23!}}.} be true although we can see no way of obtaining evidence --``

[p. 50] can you transform into a tolerable statement: ``we do not know our present experience''. I think that is Schlick\IN{\schlick} redivivus.

[p. 64] what about the assertion which has no antithesis. Can you explain that?

[p. 70] I think in Vienna already we eliminated the expression ``as many words as facts'' as if words were no facts. I avoid the term fact altogether,\fnAmargin{Ksl. und hsl. (2.~Exemplar), durchgestrichen \original{\textsp{Auf p.~70 betont Russell ausdrücklich, daß er von verbal utterances spricht, also auch words as facts auffaßt!}}.} as you know. How you translate this absolute truth expression?

[p. 77] I see no difficulty to speak of ``desiring man'', ``believing man'' etc., why Russell\IN{\russellkurz} speaks of ``desire''?

[p. 92] what is your translation of ``fact in the world''?

[p. 104] how you are translating ``no chronometer is exactly right''? This statement belongs to the language of absolute truth, there is some judge in the chair knowing the RIGHT time and then he declares no chronometer is right. I do not understand why not a chronometer should be ``right'', as it were ``by chance'' IF I ACCEPTED THE JUDGE IN THE CHAIR. Without a judge in the chair I can only say that we select certain chronometers and perhaps we prefer a group of chronometers and form a MIDDLE or something like that, but why should not by chance one just have the hands at the figures of the middle? etc.

[p. 106] wavelengths have nothing to do with colours, you may see colours e.\,g. as result of a blow without any wavelengths in Russell's\IN{\russellkurz} terminology. Wavelengths are relatable to all sense fields, a blind man may treat optics (we agree in that).

[p. 108] characteristic that GOD and his impartiality is introduced \ldots\ ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

[p. OPO\fnAmark]\fnAtext{Hier muss es sich um einen Tippfehler handeln.}\fnSE{Bei ,,OPO`` handelt es sich wohl um einen Tippfehler.}  do you know what is a ``non-mental'' world? All these expressions are possible in a transcendent realm of truth, where one may distinguish between mental and non-mental etc. but we have only protocol statements in which nothing of this dualism is \ekl{to} be found, as far as I can see. Only from the ``outside'' such a distinction may be introduced. \neueseite

[p. 111] what a strange ``pure physical world'' without ``words\ekl{''}? Only in the TRUE WORLD such distinction has any place, not within the protocol realm.

[p. 132\fnAmark{}]\fnAtext{Hsl. Einschub.} ``minimum'' ideology is also related to a certain absolutism of Truth -- as if the whole body of statements were known are knowable.

[p. 133] never completely certain \ldots\ true. How to discuss such a statement? Behind the multiplicity of statements and the fact that we are selecting some ``accepting'' them. Russell\IN{\russellkurz} imagines one particularly TRUE statement, we can never completely identify as what it is \ldots

[p. 140] what I say is, that \uline{discussion}, arguing, thinking etc. is SPEAKING, therefore I have fact-terms, statement-terms, statement of statement terms, etc. BUT NOT FACTS etc. AS ELEMENTS OF DISCUSSION. A certain Carnap\incarnap{} was sometimes partly of this opinion, weavering, but nevertheless more of this opinion. Now he seems more to be impressed by the other side of weavering.

[p. 141] Neurath\inneurath{} (and a certain Carnap\incarnap{} with a certain time index, or always, I hope so?) did not speak of reality he denied not a comparison of \fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{(doch)}}; ksl. im 2.~Exemplar \original{\textsp{(dies ist auf p.~177) doch!}}.} reality and propositions, but in his language he did not ACKNOWLEDGE the term reality \ldots\ That is all.

[p. 143] Neurath\inneurath{} says (I hope Carnap\incarnap{}, too) instead of saying there is no definite world with definite properties, we shall use the expression\ekl{:} no definite aggregate of propositions.

[p. 144] I object to ``continuity of ego'', there is EGO,\fnAmargin{Ksl. im 2.~Exemplar \original{\textsp{(dies ist auf p.~181)}}.} index time 1, Ego, index time 2 etc., that there is used the term ``genidentity'' is another point, a proposal made by clever boys, Carnap\incarnap{} included.\fnEE{Genidentität ist ein von Kurt Lewin eingeführter Begriff, der auch von Russell und Carnap verwendet wird. Vgl. Carnap, \textit{Der logische Aufbau der Welt}, \S\,128, wonach ,,genidentisch`` zwei Weltpunkte auf derselben Weltlinie sind.}

[p. 146] why should Crusoe not distinguish between image in a river and a nonimage on the bank of a river?

[p. 148] I would say if a certain police is in action after a certain time people not only speaking to others\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{unverständlich}}.} but even to themselves are using different empiricist statements. They ACCEPT other statements, why not? We do not speak of TRUE and FALSEHOOD, but only of various groups of ACCEPTED STATEMENTS. And our acceptance is related to environment, certainly, there is no point outside the ``world'' from where we may judge on TRUE and FALSE.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Gewiß; das behauptet doch niemand.}}.}

[p. 148] what is the translation of ``I mean something'' into a language without the term meaning? A statement I think is either accepted or rejected or it is not decided, therefore also a statement such as ``here is a table'', it ``means'' JUST ``here is a table'' and I may deny or accept the statement. But Russell\IN{\russellkurz} thinks it may be of importance whether ``really'' there is a table, who is in the chair saying that or objecting to it? The bearer of absolute truth, who says statements he accepts or denies, not we. I say again: in the beginning of all discussion are statements, why not?

[p. 154] again the ``immediate'' past Schlick's\IN{\schlick}. \neueseite

[p. 156] who decides that some memory is ``true''? ``erroneus'' etc., always from a speaker's point of view accepted or rejected, the judgment based on more or less accepted statements etc.

[p. 160] IT MUST BE TRUE. Who makes such a strange statement?

[p. 161] who finds out the ``CERTAIN DEGREE OF CREDENCE''.

[p. 164] who is the judge that some propositions are ``psychological'' ones?

[p. 168] I really do not understand how somebody may speak of a ``TRUE PROPOSITION'' without an absolute standpoint, otherwise he has only ACCEPTED propositions with a person index.

[\editor{p.} 171] Who tells us the story that an assertion has a ``subjective'' and ``objective'' side? Manifestly a being only which is OUTSIDE our discussion between man and man. All our statements are in competition, some we are accepting others rejecting, but what is the translation of ``subjective'' and ``objective'' in the Protocol language and its family?

[p. 186] I should just say, that we only discuss ``social terms'' and if TRUE is no social term, we cannot discuss it. How should we speak of a language precisely identical etc. WITHOUT ASSUMING THAT SOMEBODY COMPARES THE VARIOUS LANGUAGES ``from without'' \textkritik{as it}\fnA{\original{at is}} were.

[p. 187] WE MUST SUPPOSE, who ``must''? Who says this statement? Russell\IN{\russellkurz}? It is an hypothesis ``this and that language are the same'' \ldots

[p. 189] ``psychological'' comes into the story, how?

[p. 189, 191 etc. etc.] always ``meaning'' in itself discussed, i.\,e. absolute truth, not as a ``social'' relation between men.

[p. 218] the story of brain in which observable phenomena happen in the brain is often told and criticized by Avenarius\IN{\avenariusrichard} and others. Duplication. You can discuss all these problems without speaking of brain and then again the ``real'' question, only ``meaningful'' within a theory of ``absolute Truth''.

[p. 221] what \editor{do} you think of the QUESTION ``how do I think \dots'' I would say: how do I use the term table in statements in which I do not use the terms I see, I touch etc.?

[p. 221] Have we not sufficiently discussed the strange theory of ``correspondence''?

[p. 245] as if ``facts'' and ``sentences'' were in different worlds, ``there are in a room e.\,g. tables, statements etc \ldots'' is good empiricist statement, also: \textkritik{}\fnA{\original{V}}\zzz ``In this room there is a table and a label on which is written `there is a table in this room'\,''. Why not? That is all. Russell\IN{\russellkurz} seems to have sentence as a substitute for the old mind.

[p. 258] Who is in the chair who says ``if it is in fact true''?

[p. 268] As far as I can see, we are discussing whether we are accepting certain sentences or not, that is perhaps the statement most similar to Russell's\IN{\russellkurz} ``we are speaking about what it means''.

[p. 277] do you think that the ``real'' world is different from the absolute truth? That is all of the same breeding. \neueseite

[p. 281] Russell\IN{\russellkurz} objects to your opinion \fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{(? nachlesen!)}}.} -- why not you to his as far as ABSOLUTE TRUTH is in question.

[p. 282] I did not speak of solipsism.

[p. 286] I do not speak of ``percepts''.

[p. 288] truth and knowledge -- strange statement. Or not?

[p. 289] I do not think we said something similar to Hegel\IN{\hegel}.

[p. 304] Russell\IN{\russellkurz} always overlooks that my yesterday (remembering) is similar to another persons statements. Russell\IN{\russellkurz} introduces a permanent EGO and a permanent REALITY, I think so.

[p. 305] always the same.

[p. 313] degree of certainty, as above said only in relation to an absolute certainty as test object.

[p. 315] on one observation \ldots\ I do not speak of simple observations, and you, I think, only a short time.

[p. 317] the absolutism of ``the moment of the occurrence''\editor{,} again Schlick\IN{\schlick}.

[p. 321] precision only within the mathematical language, not within the aggregational language, therefore no TRUTH problem in the discussion of empiricism.

[p. 321] who tests the testing success?

[\editor{p.} 329] to\ekl{o} obviously sad.

[p. 340] inside my head \ldots

[p. 347] there are universals -- there is an absolute truth.

[p. 347] structure of the world -- absolute truth, something of it.\medskip


%\end{itemize}


\noindent I sacrificed some time to put this together, because I want to know more about your position. What is told above is the story of absolute truth in itself, I really cannot see in the statements above any attempt to describe or analyze the procedures of taking experiences.

I should like to read some explanation of yours on this point, perhaps in a letter to me. You see, just a statement like that on the ONE PERMANENT LANGUAGE, which is \ekl{a} real empiricist one, if not\fnA{\original{non}} senseless at all, and the ONE PERMANENT INDIVIDUAL shows you how much Russell\IN{\russellkurz} starts from unempiricist assumptions, because I can imagine experimental statements from which somebody infers statements such as: I have changed my language in relation to other people's language, which I accept as unchanged etc. etc \ldots\ as far as some test statement is accepted etc. etc. NO DEFINITE PERMANENCE OF SOME EXCELLENT PERSON.

Many thanks for addresses.

Please, tell Morris\IN{\morris} and yourself, that I am trying to arrange Journal and Library. You see, the long to and fro reached just the period where the paper regulation dropped in and now I have to find out what to do. As you know, I do not cease to manage things and I shall think that we have a lot to do for Europe after this war.

Therefore, at the moment, I can say nothing on Kaplan's\IN{\kaplan} book (in all cases I would like to read manuscripts before, in spite of the fact that I appreciate very much your's and Morris'\IN{\morris} judgement, of course) and other books, which may be useful for the \neueseite{}\zzz library of unified science. You see, Blackwell and others always are prepared to print without any payment by us, on the contrary paying to us, therefore I prefer an agreement, which gives us a good position and enables us to go on, without an interfering publisher. Therefore I appreciate very much our ENCYCLOPEDIA agreement which enables us to print, without particular permit of the publisher.

I should appreciate it very much, if you were prepared to publish the symbolic logic in our library,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{mein Abriss}}.} ask the co-editors, too. But, please, at the moment I cannot make a definite promise, because I have to get the general contract.

I am very interested in your semantics,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{(Er hat das Buch noch nicht!)}}.} I hope you found a way to give me an opportunity to translate your semantic statements into the ``accepting'' language, it is not simple to transform the TRUE statements into ACCEPTING statements,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Nein, Semantik und Pragmatik sind verschieden! Siehe ,,Wahrheit und Bewährung`` und ,,Semantik``, p.~28. Man darf nicht \uline{bestimmte} Übersetzbarkeit verlangen, sondern nur Nachweis, daß innerhalb empiristisch-wissenschaftlicher Sprache.}}.} the grammar is sometimes similar, but sometimes not, that depends upon your decision, how you want to introduce -- or not to introduce -- this damned ``absolute truth''. It is not only the TERM, but the GRAMMAR which is dangerous, as I pointed out again and again. I hope I shall be able to explain that \editor{in more}\fnA{Original \original{more in}.} detail in the future. I am also interested in the confirmation degree business. I have always great fear that something ``absolute'' slides into an explanation. The same is with the probability business. I think the probability language is ONLY a mathematical one, but not an aggregational one, and one has to find out how to relate them to one another. I think, you not always make sufficient distinction between ``aggregational'' terms and formula terms.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Meint er \unsicher{,,ungedeckt\grqq} oder ,,logisch\grqq\ (im Unterschied zu deskriptiv)?}}.} And after analyzing many articles and books (covering the last century) I think that the main bulk of differences between various authors is related to this problem. I found very remarkable older explanations of probability statements and statements on the permanence of certain averages (quite different statements, very often confused). But that needs a longer letter or an article. And I have at the moment (fortunately) not much time, I had to write my, already published article (NEW COMMONWEALTH QUARTERLY) on INTERNATIONAL PLANNING FOR FREEDOM, to prepare some lectures, one on TOLERATION, MUDDLE AND VICTORY with an stimulating discussion, have to make together with Mary\IN{\reidemeistermarie} films and films and illustrations for books, to continue my monograph (see above) and to organize a new institute for our visual education purposes -- that all wants time, time. At the moment is sunday, three collaborators are with us and are just discussing with Mary\IN{\reidemeistermarie} and me, climate and weather charts, urban and rural population, etc.\editor{,} all stimulating. Of course, I met many people and have a very interesting correspondence on classics with a philologist.\fnE{Philologe ??? Lauwerys ???} Sometimes I get letters from Strauss\IN{\straussmartin} and others. I think Waismann\IN{\waismann} is less and less interested in our points of view. Our British acquaintances and friends are very kind and help\neueseite{} ful, especially Susan\IN{\stebbing} in spite of her illness. We just met her in Cambridge where we had a business meeting with her and other people. I should like to get from you a letter on friends and world, on Thomism in Chicago etc. I should highly appreciate it if you were kind enough to send interesting newspaper cuttings and reprints and such stuff. We have now a nice studio again, with many files full of interesting material, but it is not our old richness, which was evolved in years. We like very much statistical data, interesting pictures of single objects, e.\,g. certain characteristic animals, buses, chairs, teapots, coffeepots etc., lists of knives\fnA{\original{knifes}} and forks, cups and pots, plates etc. refrigerators etc. We are buying LIFE, LOOK\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{,,Time`` hat oft interessante Tatsachen über Erziehung, Religion usw., zuweilen statistisch.}}.} etc. for catching such material. Today we found in this way the shape of an American telephon\ekl{e} apparatus, but there are thousands of apparatus, you know.

In England is plenty of food, if you are not so interested in particular types of food, bread is free,\fnEE{\glqq Free\grqq: im Sinne von nicht rationiert.} as you know, there are many vegetables and a real glut in milk, we enjoy it very much, dried eggs now from the US come etc. we enjoy it, too. Fine fruit etc. fish free (if not canned). Not the slightest similarity with the Central European situation in the last war. Not much meat, but you can get Vitamins\fnA{\original{Vitamines}} in various forms, e.\,g. as pills if you are very interested in these things. We are healthy and happy, and only sorry that such a terrible war is necessary to fight these gangsters. Did you hear from Paul\IN{\neurathsohn}?\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{nein}}.} He seems to be successful\fnA{\original{successfull}} in his studies and will get now a fellowship. What is with your health?

Morris\IN{\morris} wrote me about the separation from Trude\IN{\morrisfrau} -- what a pity. What about the daughter? Please give me Trude's\IN{\morrisfrau} address. What about other people, e.\,g. Moholy-Nagy\IN{\moholy}, the separated wife of whom\IN{\luzia}\fnEE{Lucia Moholy.} I sometimes met here. What about Senior\IN{\senior}, and all the other fellows? The youth of our Unity of Science Movement?

I hope and Mary\IN{\reidemeistermarie}, too, we shall meet again in peaceful valleys and talk, and talk \ldots\ and drink grapefruit from cans and orange juice \ldots\ as once in May. And then will be more planning in the world -- perhaps -- no unemployment, only the ``normal'' difficulties of life based on love and hate, envy and prestige etc. It remains a sufficiently interesting lot of problems.

I am reading many biographies, besides my special books and articles. Sometimes I look in mathematical and physical books and enjoy the clearness and exactness of this field. I understand very well, why so many thinkers try to anticipate such a clearness in all sciences. BUT ``es bleibt ein Erdenrest zu tragen peinlich und wär er von Asbest, er ist nicht reinlich'',\fnEE{Siehe Anm.~\refcn{1930-07-22-Neurath-an-Carnap-Erdenrest} (Original beginnt mit ,,Uns``).} but aggregational.

With kind regards from both of us to you, the Carnapess\ekl{e}\IN{\ina} and all our friends.
}

\grussformel{Ever yours\\Neurath}%\Apagebreak


\ebericht{Brief, Dsl., 8 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/846838}{RC 102-57-08 (msl. RC 102-56-04, weiterer Dsl. ON 222)}; Briefkopf: msl. \original{17\textsuperscript{th} July, 1942} und \original{21 Old Road, Headington, Oxford}, hsl. \original{Airmail}, ksl. \original{Stempel 20.7.} und \original{bekommen 10.8.}.\\\noindent In der Fassung unter RC 102-56-04 lauten die hsl. und ksl. Vermerke im Briefkopf: hsl. \original{copy} und \original{pp.~2--3}, ksl. \original{Stempel 20.7.}, \original{bekommen (per Schiff) 12.~August 1942} sowie \original{doppelt}; die wenigen  Annotationen Carnaps in dieser Fassung sind im textkritischen Apparat durch den Zusatz ,,2.~Exemplar`` gekennzeichnet.}
