Hello Coming back from a holiday (as the English call) I found about 40 e-mails waiting form me. I printed them all out, put them in order by date and time and started reading them. I found an addition to our circle, Eric Szuter, making his entrance like a tornado and as I see it wants to cut Galambos down to size, meaning his size. After pondering this all and philosophically evaluating my life with Galambos and thinking what it would have been without his lectures I am sure every dollar I spent was worth it and while all could have been done in a shorter time with shorter lectures, again it was worth it. I have my own opinion on Harry Brown, who calls some of Galamos activities fraud, Eric agreeing with him, which I found deeply offensive; but Brown himself who was certainly well acquainted with Galambos ideas runs for president of a concept (Politics) that can only exists with naked, brutal coercion. But the main reason for this e-mail is to quote to you gentlemen the following which I read some time ago and now quote to you verbatim. I found this in volume 13, page 401 Library of Autobiography written by John Stuart Mill. For several years from this period, our social studies assumed a shape which contributed very much to my mental progress. The idea occurred to us of carrying on, by reading and conversation, a joint study of several of the branches of science which we wished to be masters of. We assembled to the number of a dozen or more. .... We met two mornings in every week (no e-mail at that time) from .....Our first subject was Political economy. We chose some systematic treatise as our text book; my fathers Elements being our first choice. One of us read aloud a chapter, or some smaller portion of the book. The discussion then was opened, and any one who had an objection, or remark to make, made it. Our rule was to DISCUSS THOROUGHLY EVERY POINT RAISED, whether great or small, prolonging the discussion until who took part were satisfied with the conclusion they had arrived at; and to follow up every topic of collateral speculation which the chapter of the conversation suggested, NEVER LEAVING IT UNTIL WE UNTIED EVERY KNOT WHICH WE FOUND. We might try to emulate or adapt some of this procedure. May I ask you to give it some thoughts. It might be a way out of the mish-mash I find myself in. Joseph Droll

-- Anonymous, March 30, 1998

Answers

Dear Joseph: Many thanks for your sobering message repeated below. It is a fine reminder of how much you have been missed in our colloquium. I hope you had a pleasant journey. Welcome back. I appreciate your concern for the volume of rhetorical chaos that has entered our e-mail exchanges, some of it seemingly irreverent toward AJG. As for myself, I try not to take a coward's advantage of AJG's intestate absence in my own efforts to make sense of my understanding of his ideas and actions and to share my findings with you-all. I worry that I may not have succeeded but I hope with time and patience, I will have been able to contribute to a proper and lasting record of Galambos' achievements no one can deny are real, not even Harry Browne. But clearly, Andrew left his work unfinished and without instruction as to how to finish it except by working through the tedious method of science. But what a grand suggestion that was! My view of Eric's participation is that he has a lot of pent-up frustration from being out in left field for so long waiting for a fly ball or two to complete the inning and go to bat for a change. Knowing Eric, I regard his questioning of Galambos' theories and definitions to be perhaps impetuous but fundamentally respectable and creative, disturbing perhaps but not destructive. I sincerely believe Eric's provocations will have a beneficial effect on our round-robin deliberations as long as they last. I see Eric's inquiries, like mine not as an effort to cut Galambos down to our size, as you put it, but as a sincere attempt to place him appropriately in history as the anchor point that he was. I say appropriately because it would be unfair and damaging to his memory if we fail to discriminate his true achievements. We do not have the right to cover up his known shortcomings or miscredit his innovations, but we have the opportunity to advance his authentic accomplishments albeit without his specific authorization. I join with you in commending J.S.Mill's excellent advice to untie every knot. What a wonderful sentiment! and I thank you so much for bringing it to my attention. Too bad FEI could not have accommodated more of such protocol in its program.

Sincerely, Alvin

-- Anonymous, March 30, 1998