DOCS.
395,
396
OCTOBER
1917 401
idea
with
the
conception
of
the
entire
existing
consciousness and
ultimately
all
being
on
this
basis.
However,
the
problem
of
working
out
the
totality
of what
exists
directly
(as consciousness),
according
to its
quality,
from
the
naive world
of
experience
has
already
been dealt with
by many
under various labels. In
my opinion,
Mach and Avenarius
were
justified
in
considering
it the fundamental
problem
of
philosophy.
This
principle,
however,
has not been
proposed
until
now,
as
far
as
I know.
Although
the
individual elements of
my
idea
were
known and
these
were
also
recognized by you
in
your
letter,
your objections
do
prove
that
some
misunderstandings
are
still
possible
before
one can
concede
the
correctness
of
my summary.
In
projecting
oneself into
my ideas,
it
becomes
apparent
that,
for
all
its abstract
rigidity,
this
summarizing
consideration does not lack
a
certain
attraction.
One
recognizes
above all
that the
formal
relationship
of
two states
of
the
same
person
is
no
different
to
that
of
two
differing
states and
that the
difference
is
based
merely
on
the inner
qualities
of
the states. From
the
idea
of
instantaneous
solipsism,
only
one common
trait
has been
acknowledged,
namely,
that
we
cannot know
absolutely
certainly
about the
existence
of
a
preceding
state
of
ours,
just
as
about
that
of
a
foreign consciousness; however,
that
the
temporal
distinction
is
absolutely
identical to
the
distinction between
the
consciousness
of different
persons
seems
to
me
to be
a
very
important
simplification
of
our
worldview.
In
thanking
you
once
again
for
your long
letter
and
hoping
that
sooner or
later
I shall receive
word from
you,
be it
only a
short
note,
I
am yours truly,
Dr. Franz
Selety.
396. To Edgar Meyer
[Berlin,]
30
October
1917
Dear
Colleague,[1]
Even before
receipt
of
your
letter
I
had taken
steps
on
Epstein’s behalf,
turning
to
Nernst in
particular.
In
general, though,
I hear
that in
such
a
case
only
with
great difficulty
can
permission
to
leave
the
country
be
obtained,[2]
quite
contrary
to
my expectations.
Nernst
stated
bluntly
that
he could do
nothing
in this affair.
Only people
who know
E.
personally very
well
and who have
the
necessary
connections could
possibly
achieve
anything,
provided
they
came
here
and
took
up
the
matter in
person.-
With
great
interest
I
hear from
Abraham[3]
that
you
are
behind
having
Ehren-
haft’s
experiments
tested.[4]
This
really
would be
very
worthwhile. For this matter