revise this letter to make it only slightly sophisticated :Dear Mr. Diderot,

I’m in good health. It’s flattering to receive your admiration on my Wunderkammer. However, I respectfully disagree with some of your ideas. 
 We have came to both realize that our intention is both to present nature in its best form. Thus, it is only the specific ways of representation that we have different opinions in.

I regretfully admit that I’m indeed, of no expert in the samples I present. As you know, I run a couple of pharmacies, and it already took a lot of energy to collect and preserve these samples. But I most respectfully agree with your idea. One should be familiar with the knowledge of the specimen to confidently exhibit them. Although I’m already capable of the basic knowledge of these creatures, so that I could introduce them to the visitors, but I would keep studying, and observe them in person if given the chance.

What is nature? Is it what we observe with our own eyes? What we see everyday in the water, in the sky and among the forests? Or is nature what we cut open? Specimen should be presented in complete forms not just for aesthetic purposes, but also because this is the true form of nature. To present nature as it is, we should present it as we see it, right? Moreover, how should we appreciated nature? To preserve them in good status, build cabinets to exhibit them so that more people would appreciate and learn more about them? Or to cut them in pieces and place them in cold non-humanistic glasses? To perceive nature, we should perform it in a natural way. To study truth, we present what we truly see. The animals didn’t live in a glass container when alive. Instead of using artificial glasses to separate them, I kept these animals next to each other, which is the way nature preserved them.

This leads to my second point of why not classifying them according to similar species. I admire the work of Mr. Quiccheberg, and I acknowledge of how much efforts he put in order to create the 53 kinds of classification. But as I recall, Mr. Quiccheberg has also emphasized the function of these collections: a way to access knowledge outside of written texts. According to my understanding, in the future, there can be books that are carefully labeled with detailed description of each species, perhaps with detailed portraits of how things are. However, the important characteristic that separates the actual collection from the book is the astonishment it brings and the sense of things becoming real. Labeling animals and separating them in different species don’t bring the sense of reality. In reality, one doesn’t see labels on animals, and one doesn’t see animals separated with each other. My Wunderkammer is not only to present nature as it is, but also to bring nature to people. It is not a textbook, but a source of inspiration. For those reasons, please understand that I wouldn’t make any obvious change in the arrangement of the species. They are my artwork, and they illustrate my understanding of nature.

Additionally, as for the high ceiling that is beyond human reach, it is a special design, which also resonates with what Mr. Quiccheberg once said. As he puts it, ‘theatre’ takes more of its architectural rather than its metaphorical sense. The reason people feel immersed in the plays at theaters is partially because they are actually surrounded by the building, and unable to break out of it easily, so that they can better engage with the stories. How can one praise the greatness and formidability of nature if one can easily touch its edge? The formidable crocodile also serves this purpose. No matter which corner you go to in this room, there is always a fierce predator far enough for you to not be too afraid, but also close enough for you to be aware of its presence. Without the protection of the walls, aren’t humans after all in the same situation as this? Thus, this special design of an unreachable ceiling also brings visitors to have a primitive sense, and to appreciate how much we have come as a species.

Lastly, you suggested to have the Wunderkammer pleasing to the mind. Allow me to argue that if they aren’t pleasing to the eye in the first place, how can they be pleasing to the mind? One major reasons of why my Wunderkammer have become so popular is the aesthetics illustrated by ever detail of the exhibition. If the exhibition is lack of aesthetic value, not so many visitors would come, let alone gaining the knowledge in the mind.

Once again, we have the common understanding of what this collection should be about — the miniature of nature. It’s just that we have different ways of expressing our understanding, and how we personally appreciate the beauty of nature. 

Sincere regards,
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON>