Oh, but I do very much believe we must cultivate our gardens. That's exactly the point of the quotation. Nor is what I say in any way an acceptance of Panglossian optimism. It's rather an acceptance of the realistic limitations imposed on our individual human lives and efforts. I wouldn't dream of dissuading anyone from doing their best to eradicate the weeds. I do, however, quite sincerely, feel that people of all kinds should be aware of all of their options. Far be it from me to in any way indicate to them that there is some way they "have to be."

I see numbers of people troubling themselves unnecessarily over issues they cannot affect, one way or another, and would like very much to share the message that, considering what they have to do on every normal day, there's a limit to what they need feel they must accomplish in addition.

No question. I most assuredly agree. At the same time, the burdens of so many in our country are so heavy that I think we ought to absolve them from activism as a moral obligation. It's really an academic question, since in our country so few involve themselves as activists anyway. I'm not Saul Alinsky. Are you?

You will have noticed that nowhere have I suggested that people separate themselves from local needs and wants. From local hunger and local shelter and local care for children and the elderly. I simply suggest that there are many people who need no longer feel themselves personally involved when they read of the famines in Somalia, the floods in Pakistan, or the earthquakes in Indonesia.

Helen Keller was great, wasn't she? Take care.

P.S. Your Adorno quote could have been better translated.