It is really nice of you to send again the two parcels, I enjoy very much. Please send me semantics again, should I get the second copy (very improbable, as you will see from my following explanations). I shall deliver it to a person you will nominate. I need your semantics very much.
You complain seriously of the package muddle and I shall answer seriously. Your ADDRESS was UNIVERSITY. You see, there is not such a centralized office as you have in Chicago, because there is no such university. The main body is formed of the dozens of colleges (plus quasi colleges) each with its own rights and regulations, with its own “Dons” who are not always related to the University. Lecturing is a funny thing here, sometimes you are invited by the University as such, sometimes by the college sometimes by a chair, you are reading for a professor (such an honor was mine, invited by Radcliffe BrownPRadcliffe–Brown, Alfred, 1881-1955, brit. Sozialanthropologe anthropologist) – in all these cases you are on the list of the lectures. But there are cases in which discussion classes or even lectures are organized besides that etc. And now there are a great many institutes related not to the university but to colleges and then there are institutes, which are very closely “connected” and others very indirectly, e. g. INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL HISTORY, an institute made around a big part of Cole’sPCole, George D. H., 1889–1959, brit. Politikwissenschaftler und Ökonom private library, which can now be used by students in a particular reading room, with office etc. BANBURY ROAD, the house has the No. 19 as I wrote you. But the position of such institutes is changing and nobody is informed about it – a privacy unknown in Europe and perhaps in the US. Sometimes this Institute was with the International Institute of Social History in the same building (a DUTCH institute in exile), now this international institute changed its place and the building is now a part of a newly founded college, but Cole’sPCole, George D. H., 1889–1959, brit. Politikwissenschaftler und Ökonom library and his institute remained in the building nevertheless. I do not know how the “rights” are divided, because ColePCole, George D. H., 1889–1959, brit. Politikwissenschaftler und Ökonom is head of this college. And so all things are going on smoothly without great decisions and to and fro, sometimes with to and fro.
What is the advantage of this pattern (which does not make it simple to find an institute) with all this vagueness? You see if a man e. g. in Vienna could not become a “Privatdozentaprivatdocent” (let us assume he was a Jew and for decades there was an animosity) what could he do? Fight on? Or what? Here there are many, many ways to teach and to make research, you can be persona ingrata in the one college but the other college is fond of you, here you cannot get a room for lecturing, there you can get a fellowship. Nothing is centralized, nothing is organized in the sense as you and many people think planning SHOULD MADE IT.
You speak of inefficiency of democracy — my dear boy, EFFICIENT IN WHAT? That is the point. I disagree totally with all people who think of sacrifice of personal freedom because they want planning. Planning avoids destruction of raw material, avoids unemployment, provides a society with raw materials, horse power etc., and now it depends of our organization, how we go on with the distribution. The most terrible thing would 🕮{}be if people got power to bully other people, therefore thebTeilweise über den Seitenrand geschrieben und hsl. ergänzt. centralization of decisions is dangerous, therefore the rights of Local Governments important, and the rights of smaller groups and individuals, too. MAJORITY PRINCIPLE, as the continentals think of “democracy” is bad, if not reduced to the minimum of a minimum. Look: what would you say of a democracy in which the majority (60) would decide, that these 60 have 5 hours working day, the 40 but 12 hours working day, I remember the problem was in Vienna whether department houses or small buildings. I propagated to avoid a majority decision, but asked for a distribution of building-power, as it were, in proportion to the wants of the people, if 60 want department houses and 40 small ones, give each of them, what he wants, if the bricks, horse power etc. are more or less the same. You cannot make various railway gauges in one country without destroying the whole apparatus, but you can make hundreds of life patterns in one country, why not? Then there is less possibility of bullying other people and there are not a few who like to do it, not only “fanatics”. Better is education and propaganda than a law as e. g. the prohibition law in the US.
You see, when a judge tries to make decisions in accordance “with his own conscience” – and I think that is useful from my point of view, than you cannot give the courts of appeal too many chances, otherwise they overrun the judge’s decisions and he looks at the higher courts as on the continent and the civil courageccourages vanishes, to be in accordance with the highest authorities becomes important. Here you have – that is acknowledged in the whole world – the best judges, with a minimum of corruption etc. Here you have to SELECT the judges in a different way when you want changes in practice or INFLUENCING THE PUBLIC OPINION OF THE GROUPS FROM WHICH THE JUDGES COME. But it is difficult to get equalisation of decisions, without weakening the intensity of the judge’s activity. I prefer the differences of the decisions, because then we get more people with civil courage and less people who always look to the “formal” correctness of central decisions. You know to what extent even HitlerPHitler, Adolf, 1889–1945, öst.-dt. Politiker is formally legal. I DO NOT MUCH BELIEVE IN CENTRAL DECISIONS BUT MUCH MORE IN THE TOTAL BEHAVIOUR OF A FREE NATION based on tradition.
These differences in decisions create necessarily a certain kind of difficulties usually called “muddle”. You see, in free countries the police – in peace time – is not interested in somebody’s travels, no forms have to be filled in hotels etc.
FIRST PRINCIPLE: one of the many “goods” produced are: love, freedom, multiplicity, etc. besides cars, houses, grape fruit juice, etc.
SECOND PRINCIPLE: we are prepared to pay for freedom with cars, grape fruit juice etc …
RESULT is – as far as I can see, not always less efficiency even in the production of cars, making war etc. because this nice environment of freedom, reduces the TENSIONS between men. You know better, what everybody wants to do. I think, that this is one of the reasons why you have here a minimum of quislings. The German propaganda does not even try to induce sabotage here, but the British propaganda tries to do that in Germany, and is right in that, because there are ten thousands of people in Germany who conceal their opinions totally. 🕮
There are people in high positions in Germany with the swastika around the arm who hate the system. I can hardly imagine that people who think ChurchillPChurchill, Winston, 1874–1965, brit. Politiker is a damned fool, would openly declare he is the finest boy. As far as I can see, people who dislike the government with, let me say, 80 % will perhaps tell of 60 % only or less, but not of 5 %. The public discussion and the private remarks, the private arguing are similar. I would not say, that some changes can appear, not expected, but not in the continental way. Perhaps I am wrong. This opportunity e. g. to be a conscientious objector (I would not say they are very well treated, but nevertheless you are not “annihilated” or “liquidated” if you try to be one of them) is, for me and some others of great importance. I think the reduced tension (partly depending of certain common features in education, creating a common attitude etc.) helps in bearing hard shocks, and I think that just this situation (with what the continental call “muddle” with a bad taste in the mouth) helps to win this war, really. Perhaps I am wrong. You see, one cannot bear muddle without liking it, that I am right in my thinking on the British behaviour I deduce from a book, in which a British author writes: “Where is always some ‘history’ some ‘incident’ – to be frank, some incipient muddle, that makes the social life worth living.” I think you could not write that.
But only in comparison is power. Therefore I collected material from other countries, particularly on the deeply founded inefficiencydunefficiency of the traditional Prussian and German organization. Read, what RathenauPRathenau, Walther, 1867–1922, dt. Politiker und Industrieller tells on the German civil service and the selection of collaborators, why he did not expect victory from the beginning, read the description of his interview with the war minister‚ what a story – the war has started, the minister full of pride tells him that his table is empty, no recriminations, no questions (that means every soldier got his paper, with the hour of his train, carriage, no. of his seat and a remark that the lavatory on the rear is for the soldiers on the front for the Herrn Offiziere etc. ABSOLUTELY EFFICIENT). Now RathenauPRathenau, Walther, 1867–1922, dt. Politiker und Industrieller asks about the stores of raw materials …you know the classic answer and that IMMEDIATELY it was necessary to make a new office and to use Rathenau’sPRathenau, Walther, 1867–1922, dt. Politiker und Industrieller help (they did not like to use a Jew etc. you should read that and then think on muddle and democracy, that was not “muddle” in the sense of multiplicity but well based stubbornness, one-sided and stupid).
Read on the Marne battle. Perhaps I shall write a satyric story of that. It is hardehardly to believe. FROM GERMAN SOURCES you learn, that MoltkePMoltke, Helmuth von, 1800–1891, dt. General the boss of all bosses was selected stupidly, he had a nervous break down (I collected more nervous break downs, which perhaps are more dangerous than muddle) the generals commanding armies did not report sufficiently, because they wanted to have all iron crosses with diamonds and something else and did not want that the neighbour general knows too much of their intentions.🕮
Result: in the period of telegraph and telephone the Boss of all Bosses put a simple colonel on a real horseback and gave him power to organize the retreat where necessary, and now this poor fellow riding on horseback from army to army put the whole thing in a terrible mess (please read the GERMAN version of thesefthis events). I PREFER OUR BRITISH MUDDLE. The same is with Red Tape. One should make comparative studies on that. That is that. I wait for your answer, my dear anti-muddleian boy. Perhaps my Viennese tradition helps me in liking the Anglo-Saxon way of living. I think the Americans overestimate TESTING and CUTTER EFFICIENCY more than the British. I know how many things here are defect, but it is less bullying than at any other place in the world. The easy-going life is a great advantage.
I am glad that you will have time to study. I hope you will write me, how your Semantics and its TRUTH aregis related to my “accepting” etc. I do not look without fear at your actions.
Library, Journal etc. will be attempted again after a short time. As I already wrote to you, there is a new fine possibility to get money and apparatus for our unity-of-science work. That would be fine. I do not want to spoil the whole thing by pressing too much. WAIT AND SEE is always my principle, BUT DO NOT CEASE TO WAIT AND SEE. I am always prepared to work for our research and our publications, of course. Be sure that I always think of that.
PAUL’sPNeurath, Paul, 1911–2001, öst.-am. Soziologe, Sohn von Anna Schapire-Neurath (1877–1911) und Otto Neurath address is changing, please write c/o WALDEMAR KAEMPFFERTPKaempffert, Waldemar, 1877–1956, am. Wissenschaftsjournalist und Museumsdirektor, Vetter von Otto Neurath New York Times. He will get some fellowship and is successful. Please write him, he admires you and will be glad to get from you a letter and good suggestions or something else. He likes good books and grape fruit juice, too, I think so. PaulPNeurath, Paul, 1911–2001, öst.-am. Soziologe, Sohn von Anna Schapire-Neurath (1877–1911) und Otto Neurath sometimes intended to go to Chicago (OgburnPOgburn, William Fielding, 1886–1959, am. Soziologe).
On the ENCYCLOPEDIA. I always think of the encyclopedia and I now think – and you and MorrisPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris will agree with me – we should put as manyhmuch monographs as possible into our pattern which deal with particular sciences or particular activities (e. g. LANGUAGE MAKING) BECAUSE WE NEED THE HELP OF SPECIALISTS IN SINGLE FIELDS. I just try to find such specialists. Therefore SchapiroPSchapiro, Meyer, 1904–1996, am. Kunsthistoriker und Kritiker is a big show for us. Perhaps FEIGLPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl and HEMPELPHempel, Carl Gustav, 1905–1997, dt.-am. Philosoph, verh. mit Eva Hempel could make together the monograph joining the subject of 6 and 9‚ WE NEED A REVIEW ON THE REAL SITUATION IN OUR MOVEMENT, what Logical Empiricism tries to make and what kinds of systematization are reached. There are manifestly various groups of problems, the “formula” and the “aggregational expressions” e. g. (using my own terminology) are of different type and there are some of us whoiwhich stress this difference, others not. Some tendencies are towards systematization, others are cautious, the probability, induction, etc. by various authors discussed differently. I think such an analysis could be very useful. At the moment we have only books such as that by WeinbergPWeinberg, Julius, 1908–1971, am. Philosoph1Weinberg, An Examination of Logical Positivism. etc. discussing a former stage.
If FEIGLPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl would be prepared to make the general review and HEMPELPHempel, Carl Gustav, 1905–1997, dt.-am. Philosoph, verh. mit Eva Hempel the half monograph on systematization it would be a fine show.
Collecting material on the second series of monographs I am preparing a survey on people who are related to us, but have some “whims” – as it were – they should have an opportunity to express themselves with intensity (the first series of monographs 🕮{}stresses, what we have in common. I have in mind the psychologist PearPPear, Tom Hatherley, 1886–1972, brit. Psychologe, then TARSKIPTarski, Alfred, 1901–1983, poln.-am. Mathematiker und Logiker with his Truth, then REICHENBACHPReichenbach, Hans, 1891–1953, dt.-am. Philosoph. I re-read some of his enunciations and found out that he is really interested in stressing the differences. I want to give him a real chance to stress his theory of induction, his strange things on probability of hypotheses etc. (strange from my point of view, sometimes I do not grasp his intention). That is the right place for him after his very decided statements on our whole enterprise and our point of view. That is that.
The situation is this: FRANKPFrank, Philipp, 1884–1966, öst.-am. Physiker und Philosoph, verh. mit Hania Frank, Bruder von Josef Frank writes, (he wrote me that he will do it immediately) introduction and finishing chapter to FINLAYPFinlay–Freundlich, Erwin, 1885–1964, dt.-brit. Physiker showing the importance of his explanations for the whole business. BIOLOGY is open, but has to be made. THEORY OF BEHAVIOUR will be written by BRUNSWIKPBrunswik, Egon, 1903–1955, öst.-am. Psychologe, seit 1937 verh. mit Else Frenkel-Brunswik and if Næss’PNaess@Næss, Arne, 1912–2009, norweg. Philosoph Manuscript is already there together with NæssPNaess@Næss, Arne, 1912–2009, norweg. Philosoph, otherwise we shall get BrunswikPBrunswik, Egon, 1903–1955, öst.-am. Psychologe, seit 1937 verh. mit Else Frenkel-Brunswik alone.
We need a substitute for RougierPRougier, Louis, 1889–1982, fr. Philosoph (he does not even answer Morris’PMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris letters) instead of TinbergenPTinbergen, Jan, 1903–1994, niederl. Mathematiker und Ökonom we have SchapiroPSchapiro, Meyer, 1904–1996, am. Kunsthistoriker und Kritiker on arts. WirthPWirth, Louis, 1897–1952, am. Soziologe is writing, HempelPHempel, Carl Gustav, 1905–1997, dt.-am. Philosoph, verh. mit Eva Hempel and FeiglPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl together will make 6, I hope so and instead of 9 we make LANGUAGE MAKING that is a good tuba song. Bibliography and Index we shall make together. I collected a lot of articles etc. I think we should not only bring poor and pure titles but some short remarks and particularly mention books and articles in which there are some paragraphs dealing with Logical Empiricism, PRO and CON. I asked MorrisPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris to ask KaplanPKaplan, Abraham, 1918–1993, am. Philosoph, how it is with his collection.
I should like to read Kaplan’sPKaplan, Abraham, 1918–1993, am. Philosoph ideas. In principle it would be nice to find for him a place in the LIBRARY, but until now we have not got the library again.
We have to leave our house, because the landlady comes back. BUT we just – we always have good luck even when we have bad luck – found a new one in our neighbourhood in spite of the fact that houses are very rare. Just around the corner. And the chance came from outside not from the corner.
Please ask HempelPHempel, Carl Gustav, 1905–1997, dt.-am. Philosoph, verh. mit Eva Hempel whether he is prepared to do the job together with FeiglPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl in the sense mentioned above. I had the impression that HempelPHempel, Carl Gustav, 1905–1997, dt.-am. Philosoph, verh. mit Eva Hempel is quitejmuch busy and that therefore a shortening of his task would be not so bad. Perhaps we find a common title and have then two nice half monographs.
I am writing my monograph and have such an amount of material together, that I now have to re-shorten the whole thing again. Never mind. I hope it will be useful.
So is our life mixed up with war and science, love and the thinking of victory. What a terrible thing such a war, but how can one eliminate these Nazis without war? In the US there are many tensions as I learn from English and American sources. Let us hope that all things will go on very well. I am confident, because we have more producing power together.
With kind regards to all friends,
