Dear President Zimmer: It is with some substantial reluctance—and not a little trepadation to boot—that I embark on what I hope will be the begining of a "fruitful" dialogue with you about what I have adjudged to be the almost stupendous accomplishments of the scholars that have contributed to the still yet under-appreciated accomplishments of your hallowed University; these accomplishments took place, on my view, in two phases—one that occupied the first five decades of the previous century, the second the succeeding decades right up to the present moment. These accomplishments could not have taken place had it not been for the felicitious and fortuitous (not altogether) conception of pursuing knowledge—i.e., episteme, not doxa—in a unified way and in the service of the highest goals: The shaping of the historical Weltenschung and its ennoblement! For this, any philosopher or philosophical aspirant can have only the highest respect and awestruck admiration. The accomplishments I refer to involved several prominent disciplines, including, as the "Queen of the Sciences," political science, sociology, biochemistry, and, of course, perhaps most important of all, Philosophy. Perhaps I would be remiss if I did not also mention that supremest of supreme disciplines—theoretical and experimental physics. And it is here, perhaps most appropriately, that I should signal the proper place for a point of departure: the conception of knowledge central to the philosophical mission of your University could be construed—though this could be the begining of the thread of my haptology—to have a dubious relationship to the fundamental institutions of our sacred liberal democracy and its constitution. This judgement is not, of course, put forward dogmatically, but when explained more fully—something much more apprpriate to a private, ex-parte, exchange of ideas—would be found to strive at least to meet the highest standards of empirical and logical rigor: I like to imagine if Rudolph Carnap and the entire Vienna Circle were present to pre-review the dialogue, or perhaps to simply "relativistically" view it their "democratic" judgement would be that it conforms to the strictest standards of scientific hypothesis formation, and thus that it renders a number of lines of prediction that could be empirically tested, and, moreover and more significantly and profoundly, will be so tested by Nature and History itself. But that in due time. I would like, first of all, to congragulate your University for employing political scientists and philosophers who, apparently, came up with a strategy whereby they have the priviledge of watching every single American in his or her home and listening as well; moreover, it always seemed puzzling to me that when your hallowed institution hired Mr. Leo Strauss, it offered him a salary, I am told, larger than any received by any other faculty member of the department at that time: This always seemed puzzling to me, but then I hit on an idea—I realized that through a brilliant geopolitical strategy, the Neitzschean goal of world dominion was worked out and effected in 1967—which, of course, justifies the inflated wage, for the supply of money from that time forward was, of course, almost infinite and is still growing, since the mathematical genius Cantor proved that infinities can be of greater or smaller sizes. no one quarrels with the right of those who worked harder, who possessed the talent for the limitless cultivation of wealth, to so possess it. But it is a little disconcerting to find that in addition to that being the case, we also have to suffer the diminution of our privacy as well—in the face of the constitution (for some apparently only a minor inconvience that will soon go the way of the dinosaur!) RIGHTFUL rule due to mastery and virtue are not disputed—domination and lying of the highest order to the American public about the reality of their government calls for the sternest resistence—even unto death, if that is necessary: The American public has lived with the obfuscation of the truth for long enough now, and we deserve an account of what connection to the assassinations of the 1960's the politics that was being practiced in Chicago, and we deserve to have the constitutional liberties that we putatively are gaurenteed, if these cannot be secured through peaceful means, then protest is inevitable—and it is obvious that those liberties are not secured at present, and that this has something to do with the changes which took place as result of the political science that emanates from your university—far from, one might say, value free. The matter of most importance to me personally is what relationship did Dr. Arthur Curry Maimon have to your University, if any, and what relationship did he have to a Neitzsche-inspired project to produce a higher race of humans, or what Strauss calls "Natural Right"? This is no idle question as it relates to issues that involve the illegal uses of nuclear energy and the biological expermentation on human beings called for by Nietzsche in his "Human, All too Human" as well as his "Beyond Good and Evil"? If such experimentation was conducted, as I suspect it was, it has negative health implications for myself, possibly, thousands of others exposed to high doses of radiation, and now facing early death possibly by cancer; if such experiments were being done at your school, then records are kept their which could help individuals avoid the worst consequences of these problems—in my case, for example, I believe I have Cushings syndrome, and I do not think it is an accident that it is related to John Fitzgerald Kennedy's cognate illness, Addison's disease—the least that could be done is the supplying of the relevant data, so treatment could be arranged, but I realize that that would require disclosures that would be damaging to the University's reputation—but there is a moral principle involved, if these allegations have merit; moreover, since our polity could be structured for a revolution—as is implied in Jay Pridmore's University of Chicago campus guide, page 69, where it states the following: "The cold war was a very much a backdrop, perhaps an unconscious one, to the architecture [of albert Pick Hall]. Ralph Rapson declared himself intent on fitting albert Pick Hall as part of the University's venerable Gothic quadrangles. Time revealed something else, of course: Mostly the brutalist sensibility that was prevalent when the hall was built. Sheer force was indeed the order of the day, in diplomacy as well as in the heavy limestone masses of Pick Hall Rapson was a noted modernist at the time who had designed the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis and embassies in Sweden and Denmark. When he Built Pick Hall, it was regarded as a sensitive modern accompaniement to the older buildings nearby. Lately it seems clumsy, however, and the metal-frame windows and ribbed mansard roof resemble the cheap fittings of too many modern claptraps. Nevertheless, there is a certain "grace" to the tinted glass within the asymmetrically spaced lithic buttresses, 'and the day may come when its defects will rankle less and allow the architectural virtues to show clearly through. A simmilar future may await the metal sculpture outside, entitled "Dialogo" by Virginio Ferrari, whose meaning of "serenity out of strife" is wrought in abstract terms that may well be readable in decades to come. "Dialogo's" main point of interest at present is that some believe it casts a shadow resembling a hammer and sickle.' What does this evocation of Communist imagery in this context mean as well as the statement "may well be readable in decades to come": Does this imply that there is a revolution of Right wing Nietzsche-inspired Communism on the horizon in the united States, fathered ideologically by the University of Chicago? If not, Some curious turns of phrase were used in that context! Only the "relative" or "absolute" future can tell.