Dear Jerry: I was delighted to hear from you, all the more so because your letter was so unexpected. No, I certainly do not take any offense whatsoever at your criticism; in fact, I am quite flattered by the detailed attention you gave to my article. Now let me get down to the individual points you made. 1. The vagueness in my sentence on polygraphs: "However, in certain special civil cases the machine may have limited validity, but only where it is requested by the defendant." You are right that there is confusion as to whom the machine is being applied, the witness or the defendant. You are right again when you assume from the context that I refer to the defendant. The confusion arises because that sentence belongs after the one that follows it in the text. Even then it needs clarification, and I hope to do that if and when I ever include this article in a larger work. Trivial, but much appreciated. 2. Your stylistic gloss on my last sentence on page 308 – right again. More trivial, but still much appreciated. 3. Your defensive reaction to my single comment about psychiatrists on page 309. This time I cannot accept the criticism. I certainly do not deprecate psychiatry, nor do I hold psychiatrists responsible for people’s exhibitionism. I do, however, believe that the popularity of this particular profession, symbolized by the couch, has become a fact of our culture which has certainly not impeded contemporary exhibition-ism. It is not psychiatry as such, but pop-psychiatry which is re-sponsible for this deterioration of privacy. Armchair Freudiansim, once so popular in the cocktail parties of the opinion-makers, has im-pressed several generations of Americans with the idea that to tell all your woes and to bare your heart and to talk out your problems is in and of Itself a good thing. So I do not hold it against the psychiatrists as such, but against the cultural phenomenon that they symbo-Ilze. As a matter of fact, in order to document my protestation of innoce…

Dear Jerry: Thanks for your undelayed response and the reprints. On the premise that a philosopher cherishes honesty over courtesy, I do hope you will forgive my remarks. After reading your letter, I was going to reaffirm my respect for psychiatry – though by no means my unreserved adulation of Freud and his followers. However, I then read one of jour articles, "The Fall and Rise of Man," and decided to react only briefly – you are quite right about my being quite busy, especially in this season. I find, Jerry, that, as I have always suspected, you are brilliant, but that you suffer from the same defects as do Reik and others of this school. You have weaved an elaborate web of theory based on Freud, Reik, Fromm, and an eclectic study of genesis (its "myths"), and you conclude with a lecture to unrepentant theologians who still seek to protect "religion" against "science" and remain closed to your triumphant version of naturalism which will, no doubt, conquer all. If I’ve put it somewhat crudely, it’s only to emphasize my feeling that this is a case of hubris (not personal, of course) if I’ve ever seen one.Does your Reikian reconstruction of the ”rise”of man really qualify as ”science?” Do you really believe that only the benighted theolo-glans ** especially those of us who still cling to old Biblical "myths" — are disdained by ”scientists?" Certainly you are aware that, without at all deprecating psychiatry, a good case can be made out for psychoanalysis being "unscientific•”Frankly, your analysis **and I had the same feeling when reading Reik’s essays (in German) on tefillin and shofar -* is a superb derashah. with no more authentic claim on ״science'1 than any good sermon or fanciful pilpul can claim to be peshat. The major differ* ence is that when I preach a "gut vort',’ or elaborate a pilpul — No. 1: I know it isn't academically accurate; No.2: I have no pre* tenses as to its scientific validity; No.3: I don't attempt to give it the appearance of scientific va…

Dear Norman: I am pleased to send you the enclosed book. There are very few readers whose comments on it I would appreciate as much as yours. I hope all is well with you and the family. You have my best wishes for a חג כשר ושמח. As ever, Jerry

I am grateful to you for sending me a copy of your new book, Metaphysical Drift: Love and Judaism. I read it through during the Pesach holiday and was absorbed by it. Since you solicit my reactions, let me tell you that I was gratified, angered, puzzled, piqued – all these, but also enlightened and instructed by your book. Because of the unusual combination of philosophical thinking and intimate, uninhibited autobiographical details, I feel that I know you personally more than I ever had before. While I did not at first quite understand your dichotomy between interestedness and intraestedness, in the course of reading I think – if you will excuse the pun as well as the adolescent lingo – I catch your drift. I sympathize with you and relish those rare moments of intraestedness, though I wonder if they warrant new nomenclature and such philosophical weight. I was somewhat taken aback at the passion of your protest against the rabbinic ideal that “all your actions should be for the sake of Heaven,” since the emotional intensity seems disproportionate and perhaps rooted in psychological rebellion against parental control. To me, that dictum is an inspiring agadic ideal rather than a stifling halakhah, and especially in its Hasidic interpretation it can unite all of life’s fragments into a meaningful whole without denying joy, freedom, or intraestedness. In your book, at times you impute to Judaism excessive control where I see little evidence of it, and yet I appreciate the honesty and integrity of your pathos-laden reflections. I especially value your trenchant comments on lishmah, though my address on the issue is secondary to Maimonides himself, and I must add that your occasional tone of faithlessness suggests not finality but a continuing, unfinished spiritual journey – one that I hope and pray will yet bring you back to your origins in a deeper and wiser form. Out of respect for you, your work, and your family, I extend my warm regards, together with thanks for a…

Dear Norman, שליט"א, I am sorry that my comments caused you distress and sleeplessness, but then something very good came of it – your excellent interpretation of your grandfather’s ז"ל's final remark. I believe that you really penetrated to his meaning. What moved me about the remark was his humanism – his religious humanism. I shared his humanistic concern about punishment (in institutional sense) after death, but mine led to an irreligious conclusion whereas his never did. I never doubted his great piety – how could anyone who knew him! – but I feared that some on the right (perhaps just a hint) might besmirch him. Hence I wondered whether you would want it published; but with your clarification, perhaps it should be published. I am indeed very happy that with your clarification. I trust that you never questioned my esteem for his piety and wisdom – which was shared by my father and is still shared by my mother.