#löwenfeld

[detournementsmineurs]

Pendentif "Zétès et Calaïs" sur chaîne "Mérope" en or en collaboration avec Georges Braque présenté avec son "Moule de Joaillier" en co-création avec Heger de Löwenfeld (circa 1972) à l'exposition "Fred Joaillier Créateur Depuis 1936" au Palais de Tokyo, octobre 2022.

[the-firebird69]

Rammstein: Paris - Du Hast (Official Video)

a germn beer with she and i its makers with jc and mary.  real german recipe nd of his and hers fromt he past nd picked by mysefl and Hera

a new real supercar designed by Hera and i and fast as hell

my basic ladder design she and panels and floor.  actual German input on the balance.  and porche the maker of the rear engine supercar.  and me related Hera related by marriage and designed in the Fatherland  made by two characters who ran germany for a time during wwii.   granson of the makeer of citty chitty bang bang to escape them.

a classic tale o hosery...but then this nd he was silent

we past this

The ship was launched on 14 February 1939 and during the elaborate ceremonies was christened by Dorothee von Löwenfeld, granddaughter of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the ship's namesake. Adolf Hitler made the christening speech

..it means they curseed it yes and it is a huge ship unstoppable suppsoeldy.  and ordreed to be built by hitler and they call our son that he is  a baby looks it too. lol.

this the Bismark and nmed after Otto Von Bismark who passed away to allow the nazis in.  he was full german blood. but not our kind. and well thought of and remembered.  this a challnge and sign to germans and from mac proper we feel they will follwo up.   and show them the ode we see it. 

the car fits in.  and beer.  make it beefy hefty no mke it right and powerful the beer co and car. and they sink it they say. but ok. they raise it. and we do see  they plan to.  shortly.  and the names re close Lowenfeld and Lowenbrau and nearby too in germany.  we use it too.  they mean this.  and to do  this. found the code yes. and after. mb. we think so.  made it possibly.  and then tis nope we knew it.  and due to the bug or beetle. they think so. nad we do this. and work.  the car will be famous.  and a line after a time. same frame and power plant good.

the engine is performance. was for porche no vw yes. and fast. need it now and we shall start.  and good.  we hv you do stuff and the guys we coordinate with say when we think it should be and good  we do it now

we usualy do y es good and we like it now

Black God and Goddess Zues side

we do this i love it and he sys i can have al the memorbelia i want and car and good. lol. i help design the others.  we keep it the same ood he says accross the line and we hope so yes

Hera you too car and memrabelia and the car the cart and yes  i think so they do it. bismark.  hmm small.  nd auto by bismark or business mark and we see it 

daves plan a bit nd it is.

we see it

Hera again

we so this now 

Black God and Goddess Hera’s side

[julliaberg]

Thank you very much @moonghostly  ❤

[greatworldwar2]

• KMS Bismarck

Bismarck was the first of two Bismarck-class battleships built for Nazi Germany's Kriegsmarine. Named after Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the ship was laid down at the Blohm & Voss shipyard in Hamburg in July 1936 and launched in February 1939.

The two Bismarck-class battleships were designed in the mid-1930s by the German Kriegsmarine as a counter to French naval expansion, specifically the two Richelieu-class battleships France had started in 1935. Laid down after the signing of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935, Bismarck and her sister Tirpitz were nominally within the 35,000-long-ton (36,000 t) limit imposed by the Washington regime that governed battleship construction in the interwar period. The ships secretly exceeded the figure by a wide margin, though before either vessel was completed, the international treaty system had fallen apart following Japan's withdrawal in 1937, allowing signatories to invoke an "escalator clause" that permitted displacements.

Bismarck displaced 41,700 t (41,000 long tons) as built and 50,300 t (49,500 long tons) fully loaded, with an overall length of 251 m (823 ft 6 in), a beam of 36 m (118 ft 1 in) and a maximum draft of 9.9 m (32 ft 6 in). The battleship was Germany's largest warship, and displaced more than any other European battleship, with the exception of HMS Vanguard, commissioned after the end of the war. Bismarck was powered by three Blohm & Voss geared steam turbines and twelve oil-fired Wagner superheated boilers, which developed a total of 148,116 shp (110,450 kW) and yielded a maximum speed of 30.01 knots (55.58 km/h; 34.53 mph) on speed trials. Bismarck was equipped with three FuMO 23 search radar sets, mounted on the forward and stern rangefinders and foretop. The standard crew numbered 103 officers and 1,962 enlisted men.[7] The crew was divided into twelve divisions of between 180 and 220 men. The first six divisions were assigned to the ship's armament, divisions one to four for the main and secondary batteries and five and six manning anti-aircraft guns. The seventh division consisted of specialists, including cooks and carpenters, and the eighth division consisted of ammunition handlers. The radio operators, signalmen, and quartermasters were assigned to the ninth division. The last three divisions were the engine room personnel. When Bismarck left port, fleet staff, prize crews, and war correspondents increased the crew complement to over 2,200 men.

Bismarck was armed with eight 38 cm (15 in) SK C/34 guns arranged in four twin gun turrets: two super-firing turrets forward "Anton" and "Bruno" and two aft "Caesar" and "Dora". Secondary armament consisted of twelve 15 cm (5.9 in) L/55 guns, sixteen 10.5 cm (4.1 in) L/65 and sixteen 3.7 cm (1.5 in) L/83, and twelve 2 cm (0.79 in) anti-aircraft guns. Bismarck also carried four Arado Ar 196 reconnaissance floatplanes in a double hangar amidships and two single hangars abreast the funnel, with a double-ended thwartship catapult. The ship's main belt was 320 mm (12.6 in) thick and was covered by a pair of upper and main armoured decks that were 50 mm (2 in) and 100 to 120 mm (3.9 to 4.7 in) thick, respectively. The 38 cm (15 in) turrets were protected by 360 mm (14.2 in) thick faces and 220 mm (8.7 in) thick sides.

Bismarck was ordered under the name Ersatz Hannover ("Hannover replacement"), a replacement for the old pre-dreadnought SMS Hannover. The contract was awarded to the Blohm & Voss shipyard in Hamburg, where the keel was laid on July 1st, 1936 at Helgen IX. The ship was launched on February 14th, 1939 and during the elaborate ceremonies was christened by Dorothee von Löwenfeld, granddaughter of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the ship's namesake. Adolf Hitler made the christening speech. Bismarck was commissioned into the fleet on August 24th, 1940 for sea trials, which were conducted in the Baltic. Kapitän zur See Ernst Lindemann took command of the ship at the time of commissioning. On September 15th, 1940, three weeks after commissioning, Bismarck left Hamburg to begin sea trials in Kiel Bay. Sperrbrecher 13 escorted the ship to Arcona on September 28th, and then on to Gotenhafen for trials in the Gulf of Danzig. The ship's power-plant was given a thorough workout; Bismarck made measured-mile and high speed runs. As the ship's stability and manoeuvrability were being tested, a flaw in her design was discovered. When attempting to steer the ship solely through altering propeller revolutions, the crew learned that Bismarck could be kept on course only with great difficulty. Even with the outboard screws running at full power in opposite directions, they generated only a slight turning ability. Bismarck's main battery guns were first test-fired in late November. The tests proved she was a very stable gun platform. Trials lasted until December; Bismarck returned to Hamburg, arriving on the 9th, for minor alterations and the completion of the fitting-out process.

The ship was scheduled to return to Kiel on January 24th, 1941, but a merchant vessel had been sunk in the Kiel Canal and prevented use of the waterway. Severe weather hampered efforts to remove the wreck, and Bismarck was not able to reach Kiel until March. While waiting to reach Kiel, Bismarck hosted Captain Anders Forshell, the Swedish naval attaché to Berlin. He returned to Sweden with a detailed description of the ship, which was subsequently leaked to Britain by pro-British elements in the Swedish Navy. The information provided the Royal Navy with its first full description of the vessel, although it lacked important facts, including top speed, radius of action, and displacement. At 08:45 on March 8th, Bismarck briefly ran aground on the southern shore of the Kiel Canal; she was freed within an hour. The ship reached Kiel the following day, where her crew stocked ammunition, fuel, and other supplies and applied a coat of dazzle paint to camouflage her. British bombers attacked the harbour without success on the 12th.

The Naval High Command (Oberkommando der Marine or OKM), commanded by Admiral Erich Raeder, intended to continue the practice of using heavy ships as surface raiders against Allied merchant traffic in the Atlantic Ocean. The two Scharnhorst-class battleships were based in Brest, France, at the time, having just completed Operation Berlin, a major raid into the Atlantic. Bismarck's sister ship Tirpitz rapidly approached completion. Bismarck and Tirpitz were to sortie from the Baltic and rendezvous with the two Scharnhorst-class ships in the Atlantic; the operation was initially scheduled for around April 25th, 1941. Admiral Günther Lütjens, Flottenchef (Fleet Chief) of the Kriegsmarine, chosen to lead the operation, wished to delay the operation at least until either Scharnhorst or Tirpitz became available, but the OKM decided to proceed with the operation, codenamed Operation Rheinübung, with a force consisting of only Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen. At a final meeting with Raeder in Paris on April 26th, Lütjens was encouraged by his commander-in-chief to proceed and he eventually decided that an operation should begin as soon as possible.

On May 5th, 1941, Hitler and Wilhelm Keitel, with a large entourage, arrived to view Bismarck and Tirpitz in Gotenhafen. The men were given an extensive tour of the ships, after which Hitler met with Lütjens to discuss the upcoming mission. On May 16th, Lütjens reported that Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were fully prepared for Operation Rheinübung; he was therefore ordered to proceed with the mission on the evening of the 19th. As part of the operational plans, a group of eighteen supply ships would be positioned to support Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. Four U-boats would be placed along the convoy routes between Halifax and Britain to scout for the raiders. By the start of the operation, Bismarck's crew had increased to 2,221 officers and enlisted men. This included an admiral's staff of nearly 65 and a prize crew of 80 sailors, who could be used to crew transports captured during the mission. At 02:00 on May 19th, Bismarck departed Gotenhafen and made for the Danish straits. The Luftwaffe provided air cover during the voyage out of German waters. At around noon on May 20th, Lindemann informed the ship's crew via loudspeaker of the ship's mission. At approximately the same time, a group of ten or twelve Swedish aircraft flying reconnaissance encountered the German force and reported its composition and heading, though the Germans did not see the Swedes. Code-breakers at Bletchley Park had confirmed that an Atlantic raid was imminent, as they had decrypted reports that Bismarck and Prinz Eugen had taken on prize crews and requested additional navigational charts from headquarters. A pair of Supermarine Spitfires was ordered to search the Norwegian coast for the flotilla.

German aerial reconnaissance confirmed that one aircraft carrier, three battleships, and four cruisers remained at anchor in the main British naval base at Scapa Flow, which confirmed to Lütjens that the British were unaware of his operation. On the evening of May 20th, Bismarck and the rest of the flotilla reached the Norwegian coast. The following morning, radio-intercept officers on board Prinz Eugen picked up a signal ordering British reconnaissance aircraft to search for two battleships and three destroyers northbound off the Norwegian coast. At 7:00 on the 21st, the Germans spotted four unidentified aircraft, which quickly departed. When Bismarck was in Norway, a pair of Bf 109 fighters circled overhead to protect her from British air attacks, but a Spitfire was able to fly directly over the German flotilla at a height of 8,000 m (26,000 ft) and take photos of Bismarck and her escorts. Upon receipt of the information, Admiral John Tovey ordered the battlecruiser HMS Hood, the newly commissioned battleship HMS Prince of Wales, and six destroyers to reinforce the pair of cruisers patrolling the Denmark Strait. The rest of the Home Fleet was placed on high alert in Scapa Flow. Bismarck did not replenish her fuel stores in Norway, as her operational orders did not require her to do so. She had left port 200 t (200 long tons) short of a full load, and had since expended another 1,000 t (980 long tons) on the voyage. At midnight, when the force was in the open sea, heading towards the Arctic Ocean, Raeder disclosed the operation to Hitler, who reluctantly consented to the raid. The three escorting destroyers were detached at 04:14 on May 22nd, while the force steamed off Trondheim. At around 12:00, Lütjens ordered his two ships to turn toward the Denmark Strait to attempt the break-out into the open Atlantic. Upon entering the Strait, both ships activated their FuMO radar detection equipment sets. Around 12:00, the pair had reached a point north of Iceland. Prinz Eugen's radio-intercept team decrypted the radio signals being sent by Suffolk and learned that their location had been reported.

Lütjens gave permission for Prinz Eugen to engage Suffolk, but the captain of the German cruiser could not clearly make out his target and so held fire. Suffolk quickly retreated to a safe distance and shadowed the German ships. At 20:30, the heavy cruiser HMS Norfolk joined Suffolk, but approached the German raiders too closely. Lütjens ordered his ships to engage the British cruiser; Bismarck fired five salvoes, three of which straddled Norfolk and rained shell splinters on her decks. The cruiser laid a smoke screen and fled into a fog bank, ending the brief engagement. At 05:07, hydrophone operators aboard Prinz Eugen detected a pair of unidentified vessels approaching the German formation at a range of 20 nmi (37 km; 23 mi). At 05:45 on May 24th, German lookouts spotted smoke on the horizon; this turned out to be from Hood and Prince of Wales, under the command of Vice Admiral Lancelot Holland. Lütjens ordered his ships' crews to battle stations. By 05:52, the range had fallen to 26,000 m (28,000 yd) and Hood opened fire, followed by Prince of Wales a minute later. Hood engaged Prinz Eugen, which the British thought to be Bismarck, while Prince of Wales fired on Bismarck.

The British ships approached the German ships head on, which permitted them to use only their forward guns; Bismarck and Prinz Eugen could fire full broadsides. Several minutes after opening fire, Holland ordered a 20° turn to port, which would allow his ships to engage with their rear gun turrets. Both German ships concentrated their fire on Hood. Prinz Eugen scored a hit with a high-explosive 20.3 cm (8.0 in) shell; the explosion detonated unrotated projectile ammunition and started a large fire, which was quickly extinguished. Lütjens ordered Prinz Eugen to shift fire and target Prince of Wales, to keep both of his opponents under fire. Within a few minutes, Prinz Eugen scored a pair of hits on the battleship that started a small fire. Lütjens then ordered Prinz Eugen to drop behind Bismarck, so she could continue to monitor the location of Norfolk and Suffolk, which were still 10 to 12 nmi (19 to 22 km; 12 to 14 mi) to the east. At 06:00, Hood was completing the second turn to port when Bismarck's fifth salvo hit. Two of the shells landed short, striking the water close to the ship, but at least one of the 38 cm armour-piercing shells struck Hood and penetrated her thin deck armour. The shell reached Hood's rear ammunition magazine and detonated 112 t (110 long tons) of cordite propellant. The massive explosion broke the back of the ship between the main mast and the rear funnel; the forward section continued to move forward briefly before the in-rushing water caused the bow to rise into the air at a steep angle. The stern also rose as water rushed into the ripped-open compartments. In only eight minutes of firing, Hood had disappeared, taking all but three of her crew of 1,419 men with her. Bismarck then shifted fire to Prince of Wales. The British battleship scored a hit on Bismarck with her sixth salvo, but the German ship found her mark with her first salvo. One of the shells struck the bridge on Prince of Wales, though it did not explode and instead exited the other side, killing everyone in the ship's command centre, save Captain John Leach, the ship's commanding officer, and one other. The two German ships continued to fire upon Prince of Wales, causing serious damage. Guns malfunctioned on the recently commissioned British ship, which still had civilian technicians aboard. Prince of Wales scored three hits on Bismarck in the engagement. The first struck her in the forecastle above the waterline but low enough to allow the crashing waves to enter the hull. The second shell struck below the armoured belt and exploded on contact with the torpedo bulkhead, completely flooding a turbo-generator room and partially flooding an adjacent boiler room. The third shell passed through one of the boats carried aboard the ship and then went through the floatplane catapult without exploding.

At 06:13, Prince of Wales made a 160° turn and laid a smoke screen to cover her withdrawal. The Germans ceased fire as the range widened. Lütjens obeyed operational orders to shun any avoidable engagement with enemy forces that were not protecting a convoy, and the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen headed for the North Atlantic. In the engagement, Bismarck had fired 93 armour-piercing shells and had been hit by three shells in return. After the engagement, Lütjens reported, "Battlecruiser, probably Hood, sunk. Another battleship, King George V or Renown, turned away damaged. Two heavy cruisers maintain contact." At 08:01, he transmitted a damage report and his intentions to OKM, which were to detach Prinz Eugen for commerce raiding and to make for Saint-Nazaire for repairs. Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered all warships in the area to join the pursuit of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. Tovey's Home Fleet was steaming to intercept the German raiders, but on the morning of May 24th was still over 350 nmi (650 km; 400 mi) away. The Admiralty ordered the light cruisers Manchester, Birmingham, and Arethusa to patrol the Denmark Strait in the event that Lütjens attempted to retrace his route. In all, six battleships and battlecruisers, two aircraft carriers, thirteen cruisers, and twenty-one destroyers were committed to the chase. With the weather worsening, Lütjens attempted to detach Prinz Eugen at 16:40. The cruiser was successfully detached at 18:14. Seeing Bismarck, Prince of Wales fired twelve salvos at Bismarck, which responded with nine salvos, none of which hit. The action diverted British attention and permitted Prinz Eugen to slip away. Although Bismarck had been damaged in the engagement and forced to reduce speed, she was still capable of reaching 27 to 28 knots (50 to 52 km/h; 31 to 32 mph), the maximum speed of Tovey's King George V. Unless Bismarck could be slowed, the British would be unable to prevent her from reaching Saint-Nazaire. Shortly before 16:00 on May 25th, Tovey detached the aircraft carrier Victorious and four light cruisers to shape a course. At 22:00, Victorious launched the strike, which comprised six Fairey Fulmar fighters and nine Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers. Bismarck also used her main and secondary batteries to fire at maximum depression to create giant splashes in the paths of the incoming torpedo bombers. None of the attacking aircraft were shot down. Bismarck evaded eight of the torpedoes launched at her, but the ninth struck amidships on the main armoured belt, throwing one man into a bulkhead and killing him and injuring five others. The explosion also caused minor damage to electrical equipment. The ship suffered more serious damage from manoeuvres to evade the torpedoes: rapid shifts in speed and course loosened collision mats, which increased the flooding from the forward shell hole and eventually forced abandonment of the port number 2 boiler room. This loss of a second boiler, combined with fuel losses and increasing bow trim, forced the ship to slow to 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph).

Shortly after the Swordfish departed from the scene, Bismarck and Prince of Wales engaged in a brief artillery duel. Neither scored a hit. Bismarck's damage control teams resumed work after the short engagement. The sea water that had flooded the number 2 port side boiler threatened to enter the number 4 turbo-generator feedwater system, which would have permitted saltwater to reach the turbines. The saltwater would have damaged the turbine blades and thus greatly reduced the ship's speed. By morning, the danger had passed. As the chase entered open waters, British ships were compelled to zig-zag to avoid German U-boats that might be in the area. At 03:00 on May 25th, Lütjens ordered an increase to maximum speed, which at this point was 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph). He then ordered the ship to circle away to the west and then north. This manoeuvre coincided with the period during which his ship was out of radar range; Bismarck successfully broke radar contact and circled back behind her pursuers. The Royal Navy search became frantic, as many of the British ships were low on fuel. Victorious and her escorting cruisers were sent west, other British ships continued to the south and west, and Tovey continued to steam toward the mid-Atlantic. British code-breakers were able to decrypt some of the German signals, including an order to the Luftwaffe to provide support for Bismarck making for Brest. Tovey could now turn his forces toward France to converge in areas through which Bismarck would have to pass. Victorious, Prince of Wales, Suffolk and Repulse were forced to break off the search due to fuel shortage; the only heavy ships remaining apart from Force H were King George V and Rodney, but they were too distant.

HMS Ark Royal's Swordfish were already searching nearby when the Bismarck was found. Several torpedo bombers also located the battleship, about 60 nmi (110 km; 69 mi) away from Ark Royal. Somerville ordered an attack as soon as the Swordfish returned and were rearmed with torpedoes. As a result, the Swordfish, which were armed with torpedoes equipped with new magnetic detonators. Upon returning to Ark Royal, the Swordfish loaded torpedoes equipped with contact detonators. The attack comprised fifteen aircraft and was launched at 19:10. At 20:47, the torpedo bombers began their attack descent through the clouds. The Swordfish then attacked; Bismarck began to turn violently as her anti-aircraft batteries engaged the bombers. One torpedo hit amidships on the port side, just below the bottom edge of the main armour belt. The force of the explosion was largely contained by the underwater protection system and the belt armour but some structural damage caused minor flooding. The second torpedo struck Bismarck in her stern on the port side, near the port rudder shaft. The coupling on the port rudder assembly was badly damaged and the rudder became locked in a 12° turn to port. The explosion also caused much shock damage. The crew eventually managed to repair the starboard rudder but the port rudder remained jammed. With the port rudder jammed, Bismarck was now steaming in a large circle, unable to escape from Tovey's forces. Though fuel shortages had reduced the number of ships available to the British, the battleships King George V and Rodney were still available, along with the heavy cruisers Dorsetshire and Norfolk. Lütjens signalled headquarters at 21:40 on the 26th: "Ship unmanoeuvrable. We will fight to the last shell. Long live the Führer." As darkness fell, Bismarck briefly fired on Sheffield, though the cruiser quickly fled. Sheffield lost contact in the low visibility and Captain Philip Vian's group of five destroyers was ordered to keep contact with Bismarck through the night. The ships encountered Bismarck at 22:38; the battleship quickly engaged them with her main battery. After firing three salvos, she straddled the Polish destroyer ORP Piorun. The destroyer continued to close the range until a near miss at around 12,000 m (39,000 ft) forced her to turn away. Between 05:00 and 06:00, Bismarck's crew attempted to launch one of the Arado 196 float planes to carry away the ship's war diary, footage of the engagement with Hood, and other important documents. As it was not possible to launch the aircraft, it had become a fire hazard, and was pushed overboard.

After daybreak on May 27th, King George V led the attack. Rodney followed off her port quarter; Tovey intended to steam directly at Bismarck until he was about 8 nmi (15 km; 9.2 mi) away. At 08:43, lookouts on King George V spotted her, some 23,000 m (25,000 yd) away. Four minutes later, Rodney's two forward turrets, comprising six 16 in (406 mm) guns, opened fire, then King George V's 14 in (356 mm) guns began firing. Bismarck returned fire at 08:50 with her forward guns; with her second salvo, she straddled Rodney. Thereafter, Bismarck's ability to aim her guns deteriorated as the ship, unable to steer, moved erratically in the heavy seas. As the range fell, the ships' secondary batteries joined the battle. Norfolk and Dorsetshire closed and began firing with their 8 in (203 mm) guns. At 09:02, a 16-inch shell from Rodney struck Bismarck's forward superstructure, killing hundreds of men and severely damaging the two forward turrets. According to survivors, this salvo probably killed Lütjens and the rest of the bridge staff. A second shell from this salvo struck the forward main battery, which was disabled, though it would manage to fire one last salvo at 09:27. Lieutenant von Müllenheim-Rechberg, in the rear control station, took over firing control for the rear turrets. He managed to fire three salvos before a shell destroyed the gun director, disabling his equipment. He gave the order for the guns to fire independently, but by 09:31, all four main battery turrets had been put out of action. One of Bismarck's shells exploded 20 feet off Rodney's bow and damaged her starboard torpedo tube—the closest Bismarck came to a direct hit on her opponents. With the bridge personnel no longer responding, the executive officer CDR Hans Oels took command of the ship from his station at the Damage Control Central. He decided at around 09:30 to abandon and scuttle the ship to prevent Bismarck being boarded by the British, and to allow the crew to abandon ship so as to reduce casualties. Gerhard Junack, the chief engineering officer, ordered his men to set the demolition charges with a 9-minute fuse but the intercom system broke down and he sent a messenger to confirm the order to scuttle the ship. The messenger never returned, so Junack primed the charges and ordered his men to abandon ship. By 10:00, Tovey's two battleships had fired over 700 main battery shells, many at very close range. Overall the four British ships fired more than 2,800 shells at Bismarck, and scored more than 400 hits, but were unable to sink Bismarck by gunfire. The heavy gunfire at virtually point-blank range devastated the superstructure and the sections of the hull that were above the waterline, causing very heavy casualties, but it contributed little to the eventual sinking of the ship.

The scuttling charges detonated around 10:20. By 10:35, the ship had assumed a heavy port list, capsizing slowly and sinking by the stern. At around 10:20, running low on fuel, Tovey ordered the cruiser Dorsetshire to sink Bismarck with torpedoes and ordered his battleships back to port. Dorsetshire fired a pair of torpedoes into Bismarck's starboard side, one of which hit. Dorsetshire then moved around to her port side and fired another torpedo, which also hit. By the time these torpedo attacks took place, the ship was already listing so badly that the deck was partly awash. Bismarck had been reduced to a shambles, aflame from stem to stern. She was slowly settling by the stern from uncontrolled flooding with a 20 degree list to port. Bismarck disappeared beneath the surface at 10:40. Around 400 men were now in the water; Dorsetshire and the destroyer Maori moved in and lowered ropes to pull the survivors aboard. At 11:40, Dorsetshire's captain ordered the rescue effort abandoned after lookouts spotted what they thought was a U-boat. Dorsetshire had rescued 85 men and Maori had picked up 25 by the time they left the scene. A U-boat later reached the survivors and found three men, and a German trawler rescued another two. One of the men picked up by the British died of his wounds the following day. Out of a crew of over 2,200 men, only 114 survived. The wreck of Bismarck was discovered on June 8th, 1989 by Dr. Robert Ballard, the oceanographer responsible for finding RMS Titanic. Bismarck was found to be resting on its keel at a depth of approximately 4,791 m (15,719 ft), about 650 km (400 mi) west of Brest.

[tararira2020]

| Arar |

El delfín que no fue

Caroline Newton

El desenlace era de esperar en función de los antecedentes culturales de uno y otro. Y de los arrebatos de Jung que mostraron sus verdaderos intereses a partir de los años 30’, y que revelaron su verdadera piel de cordero y mostraron, en definitiva, que había usado a Freud y al psicoanálisis para llevar agua para su molino. Algo que no es censurable en sí mismo, ya que en todo encuentro —hemos podido escuchar en reiteradas oportunidades a Germán García— hay sumas y “restos” que no necesariamente dan cero. El encuentro de estas dos figuras no dio justamente cero para ninguna de las dos. Como diría Peter Gay, en la medida que se iba peleando con Freud, Jung iba dando forma a su propia psicología. Freud también tenía en la perspectiva de su encuentro con el suizo intereses en juego, la diferencia como diría Ferenczi es que Jung siempre hacía de todo una cuestión personal, en tanto Freud estaba preocupado por la causa.

Esos antecedentes culturales están expresados desde el comienzo por Jung: “Mi educación, mi medio ambiente y mis premisas científicas son en todo caso extraordinariamente distintas de las suyas” (29/12/06). Por otra parte provenía de una familia en la cual se habían destacado médicos que llevaban su nombre, el abuelo y bisabuelo. Su abuelo no llevaba una vida holgada y se comenta que fue rescatado de la calle por A. Von Humboldt. Su bisabuelo, contrariando la teoría de los arquetipos, la parte correspondiente al inconsciente colectivo, tenía la idea que los judíos tenían que ocupar Palestina (respecto a las opiniones de Jung en ese sentido se puede consultar las declaraciones a un periódico alemán en el año 1939). El abuelo según la leyenda, que él comenta, había sido hijo natural de Göethe. El padre de Jung como es sabido fue clérigo en la capilla de Basilea. Para entender qué había encontrado Jung en Freud y promover desde entonces un acercamiento se puede leer en su libro “Recuerdos...” donde dice que su actividad en Burghölzli estaba marcada  por un ambiente de mediocridad con rechazo a toda idea externa. Por parte de Freud el encuentro con Jung marcó el fin del “espléndido aislamiento”. Aventurando una ecuación podría decirse que Jung representó para Freud algo similar a lo que representó Althusser para Lacan en 1964.

La correspondencia se inicia con una carta de Freud que agradece a Jung el envío del trabajo “Psicoanálisis y experimento asociativo”, donde es citado  (11-04-06). Freud usa esa referencia en su trabajo “El psicoanálisis y los procedimientos judiciales”. Freud le dice que espera que sigan coincidiendo y también que lo corrija. Poco después le hace saber cuáles serán sus enemigos en el campo de batalla y el futuro venturoso: “Los grandes señores de la psiquiatría significan en realidad muy poco, el futuro nos corresponde a nosotros y a nuestras concepciones y la juventud toma partido por nosotros” haciéndole saber con qué aliados espera contar: “Una vez que  Bleuler y usted y hasta cierto punto también Löwenfeld me han prestado oído en la literatura, el movimiento a favor de nuestra innovación no podrá ser parado, pese a toda la resistencia de las autoridades, condenadas a desaparecer”. En esa misma carta donde pide que se le preste atención no deja de establecer sus diferencias con el trabajo de Jung “Psicología de la demencia precoz” donde habla de las toxinas como causa dejando de lado algo a lo cual él, Freud, concede mayor valor: “+++ la sexualidad”. Aclarándole que lo deja de lado cuando aún queda mucho por decir al respecto (carta 1º/1/07).

Esa posición respecto a las grandes figuras aparece en otros momentos de la correspondencia. El 3-06-09 comentando el viaje a América le dice a Jung: “Jones me amenaza, no sin tendenciosidad, con la presencia de todos los psiquiatras más destacados. No espero nada de los figurones”. E inmediatamente expresa su estrategia para el combate que permite entender el fenómeno de la tan mentada psicología del yo, y algo muy actual comentado por Germán García en una clase sobre el psicologismo ambiente, y en su momento destacado por Eric Laurent, en el nacimiento de ese nuevo objeto llamado el psicólogo clínico. “Pero pienso —decía Freud— si no sería más prudente basarse en general en la psicología ya que Stanley Hall es psicólogo y dedicar las tres o cuatro conferencias a los sueños”.

No obstante, para esa confrontación hacían falta esos elementos que encuentra en Bleuler y Cía. Jung presentaba cierto extravío (aunque nada parecido a Fliess), pero la metonimia con Bleuler lo ubicaba más del lado del prestigio de los guías. No es casual que Freud hiciera alusión, cuando rompe con Jung, al recuerdo de Breuer. Así también, si el 7 de mayo de 1900 había escrito a Fliess sobre su espléndido aislamiento, el 2-09-07 le dice a Jung que desearía hallarse junto a él “alegrarme por no estar ya sólo y referirle a usted, si precisa que le animen un poco, acerca de mis largos años de honrosa, pero dolorosa soledad y que comenzaron para mí tras haber lanzado la primera ojeada al nuevo mundo, acerca de la ausencia de participación y comprensión de los amigos más próximos”. Aclarando enseguida que la seguridad y tranquilidad que se había apoderado de él le aconsejó esperar hasta que una voz desconocida del montón respondiese a la mía. “Dicha voz fue la suya” dirá. La paciencia como virtud es algo que Freud practicaba, podemos recordar aquella afirmación que quien sabe esperar no tiene necesidad de hacer concesiones, se termina cediendo en las palabras y se cede en los hechos. Esa virtud es la que, posiblemente, lo llevó a Lacan a caracterizarlo como el burgués tranquilo de Viena frente al apuro de los surrealistas. Ferenczi en una carta (12-11-13) le dice, hablando de los esfuerzos de Jung por cuidar el estilo, paciencia cristiana frente a intransigencia judía a lo cual Freud responde que “el estilo de Jung no me parece cristiano sino insolente y viperino” (13-11-13). Que Freud le haya dicho a Jung que era la voz que esperaba, no implica como afirman Jones, ni Schur, que Freud que tanto conocía a la gente, se había equivocado profundamente con Jung. Aunque es cierto como afirma Peter Gay que esperaba otra cosa del suizo, no desconocía la posición de Jung, lo hacía saber todo el tiempo en la correspondencia. En respuesta a una carta de Jung donde le pregunta si “concibe usted la sexualidad como la madre de todos los sentimientos” Freud le hacía saber que “Abraham se ha granjeado mi simpatía por ir directamente al problema sexual y por ello he puesto gustosamente a su disposición aquello que tenía” Y dejando las cosas en claro, una vez más, dirá que no entiende que significa la personalidad como tampoco lo que significa el “yo” de Bleuler en sus estudios sobre la afectividad (27-08-07). Por su parte Jung también tuvo sus soledades. En 1910 (13/12) le escribe a Freud: “No solamente se habla mal de mi, sino que este invierno no he llegado a dar mi curso por falta de oyentes”.

Esa aparición de Bleuler no es casual, era director de la clínica donde trabajaba Jung y también lo hizo Abraham, donde se leían las nuevas teorías freudianas. El 19-04-08 Freud hacía saber a Jung que estaba sumamente enojado con Bleuler porque “quiere aceptar la psicología sin la sexualidad, con lo que todo queda en el aire”. Dirá que sustituye la sexualidad por lo orgánico con lo cual al médico se le torna extraña la vida psíquica. Hace saber que le produce fastidio que se tome una parte, diciendo que lo que dice es exacto en parte. Y afirma algo que Jung no olvida ya que lo refiere en sus “Recuerdos”: “o todo o nada en absoluto”. Es algo que en otra oportunidad dirá que nadie deberá dedicarse a algo si no está decidido a hacerlo de manera incondicional. El 19-02-09 al criticar a Adler, quien ve en la actitud del yo respecto a la libido la condición de la neurosis, Freud le expresa a Jung: “y ahora lo encuentro a usted en el mismo camino y casi con las mismas palabras. Es decir a través del yo insuficientemente estudiado por mí, incurre usted también en el riesgo de ser injusto con la libido, a la cual he consagrado mi atención”. Se puede suponer que la respuesta a ese llamado de atención de Freud, Jung la desplaza hacia Jones, a quien escribe el 25-02-09 que en cuanto al tema de la sexualidad, la actitud extrema la representa Gross, que resulta peligrosa para todo el movimiento: “Tanto con los estudiantes como con los pacientes sigo adelante gracias a que no coloco en lugar prominente el tema de la sexualidad”. No hay que olvidar que quien habló en primer lugar de Jones a Freud, fue Jung (11-09-07) refiriéndose al encuentro que había tenido con él en el congreso de Ámsterdam, y le dice que lo visitará seguramente; “es muy inteligente y podrá prestar muy buen servicio”. No hay referencias de otras correspondencias de Freud con Jones o Abraham  para esa fecha, comentando acerca del tema que le llamaba la atención a Jung.

El 1º-03-11 Freud habla de una correcta crítica de Jones a Morton Prince, ponderando el comportamiento del mismo y lo acertado de la elección. Sobre el final de la carta realiza una critica a Adler diciendo que “No había reparado yo que un psicoanalista conceda tanta preeminencia al Yo. El Yo desempeña desde luego el papel del tonto de circo, que se agita mucho de un lado para otro para que los espectadores crean que es él quien organiza todo cuanto está sucediendo”. Recordemos que Lacan en la Dirección de la Cura dirá con relación a los sueños que ya no puede fingir que es su organizador. En su respuesta, Jung expresa que Adler parece convertirse en muy peligroso (8-03-11), lo que no dirá en sus “Recuerdos” cuando expresará que pudo comprender la teoría del poder ya que prestando más atención pudo entender que Adler, como muchos hijos, había aprendido del padre no lo que dijo sino lo que hizo. Sin duda que la transferencia, que no es lo que dice Jung, permite hablar de modo distinto según los tiempos. En su libro se atribuye haber hecho saber a Freud que tenía que trabajar el texto de Schreber, en una carta del 19-03-11 decía algo distinto: “Tan sólo ahora disfruto de las pruebas de su Schreber. No solamente está escrito de un modo sabroso y apasionante, sino incluso brillante. Si yo fuese un altruista pondría ahora de manifiesto lo contento que estoy por haber asumido usted a Schreber y mostrado a la psiquiatría los tesoros que se pueden recoger ahí. Pero me tengo que contentar con el papel de envidioso por no haberlo abordado yo con anterioridad. Pero estas lamentaciones no sirven de mucho”. No obstante, esos elogios no duraron mucho, sólo el tiempo que le llevó a Jung enterarse que el trabajo había sido escrito contra su teoría.

Habría que conceder que Freud decía la verdad cuando expresaba a Jones y Ferenczi que son ellos quienes tendrían que hacer frente,... que a él no le gusta marcar las diferencias de manera escandalosa. Lo hacía trabajando, podríamos decir. En medio de la disputa con Adler, Jung también acordó con Freud en el parecido con Bleuler, lo hace en una carta de 19-07-11, donde además hace saber que su antiguo jefe ha decidido terminar las relaciones personales con él, y lo atribuye a la cuestión del alcohol (la leyenda sobre ello en viaje a EEUU, donde se produce el desmayo de Freud. Ese  episodio muestra un Freud distinto al que relata Jung en sus recuerdos como totalmente falto de humor, a diferencia del que destaca Jones). Abraham en carta del 18-10-10 había dicho a Freud que había que cuidar a Bleuler.

El primer encuentro entre ambos se produce el 3-03-07 según Mc Guire quien dice que Jones se equivoca, ya que da la fecha de 27 de febrero, pero Jung también en sus “Recuerdos” menciona esa fecha. Luego de ese encuentro hay una carta de Jung del 31-03-07 donde le hace saber las dificultades que tiene con el concepto de sexualidad ampliada, y comenta como a diferencia de él que hace 4 años que medita sobre ello, Rank no tiene ninguna dificultad en admitirlo. Supone entonces que por esa razón el público no lo comprenderá, (cf. Luego con las críticas en la prensa como uno de los motivos fundamentales -entiendo- de la distancia que va tomando Jung del tema de la sexualidad) y además opina que tiene la idea que Rank habla por las palabras del maestro. Freud contesta el 7-04-07 y haciendo referencia al diálogo mantenido critica el intento de cambiar los términos, esto se debe a que Jung había expresado las dificultades y por ende las vueltas que había tenido que dar para explicar a Bleuler qué es lo que entendía Freud por la libido. “La agresión es la mejor defensa” dirá Freud y si lo que se nos exige es que renunciemos a la pulsión sexual, debemos creer en ella. Rank tendrá efectivamente poco éxito, tiene un estilo autoerótico y carece de consideración pedagógica. Esas resistencias de Jung a las consideraciones libidinales serán permanentes, ante lo cual Freud expresaba más adelante que cuando se pudiera vencer esa posición el porvenir sería mejor: “Cuando Bleuler y usted hayan reconocido la teoría de la libido, la repercusión en la literatura será sonada”. (21-04- 07)

En relación con el tema de la libido no se puede dejar de hacer mención a la figura de Abraham, el más normal de todos los que integraron el Comité, según afirmaciones de Jones. La correspondencia con él comienza el 25-06-07 donde Freud le hace saber que tiene conocimiento de su trabajo “Sobre el significado de los traumas sexuales infantiles para la sintomatología de la demencia precoz” (con Jung comienza la corresp. El 11-04-06). La fecha hace suponer que puede haber existido una referencia a Abraham en el encuentro de Jung – Freud el mes anterior (recordar que Freud había concurrido a ese encuentro con Binswanger, de quien Jung dice las mejores cosas y también las peores. Así como se encuentra en el episodio de Constanza como causa del enojo de Jung, 3-03-07 o 27-02) No se sabe, por ahora, de donde saca ese texto Freud. El 9-08-07 Abraham le hace saber que no ha podido contestar antes su carta porque sus dos jefes, Bleuler y Jung, se han ausentado de la clínica al mismo tiempo, lo que lo ha hecho trabajar demasiado. Allí Abraham expresa algo que será criticado por Lacan: “La evolución insuficiente hacia el amor objetal es manifiestamente una inhibición del desarrollo de la personalidad. Y la personalidad de un hombre no es otra cosa que su modo individual de responder a los estímulos del mundo externo. A partir de los trabajos escritos por usted  se me ha hecho claro que “el reaccionar al mundo externo está en estrecha relación con la sexualidad” a lo cual Freud responde, aunque no inmediatamente, sino dos meses después, (21-10-07) que no se trata de la personalidad, que al igual que el concepto del yo de su jefe, Bleuler, es expresión poco definida, procedente de la psicología superficial (recordemos que Jung y Abraham compartieron el mismo jefe en la clínica que trabajaron). En medio de esa cartas circulan otras (6-10-07) donde Abraham le solicita si lo puede recomendar a alguien en Berlín dado que está dispuesto a dejar la clínica en Zurich, expresando que pondrá fin a sus actividades como médico en hospitales de enfermedades mentales y las razones que da y al juzgar como le fue, impediría situarlo en la misma posición que Reik: “en Alemania por ser judío, en Suiza por no ser suizo, en 7 años no he podido ir más allá de un cargo de asistente”. Freud le contesta que por razones obvias no lo puede contactar con Fliess, pero que si el prestigio de Freud crece y quiere decirse discípulo de él, podría respaldarlo. A lo cual responde que estaría encantado de presentarse como discípulo suyo.

En carta del 29-01-08 le hace saber a Freud que ya que ha estado de acuerdo con el énfasis en la sexualidad y será el punto central que tocará en el congreso. A lo que Freud responde que cuenta con toda su aprobación para colocar en primer plano la libido. Del congreso sabemos en la correspondencia del 3-05-08, donde le recuerda Freud que su exposición llevó a conflictos con Jung. Si bien no tuvo dudas en darle la razón, Freud le dice que es necesario no crear desavenencias. “También -agrega- debemos considerar importante para nosotros que Jung encuentre el camino de retorno a la concepción que ahora ha abandonado y usted ha sustentado con tanta consecuencia”. En la misma fecha también le escribe a Jung, y le dice: “Tengo que rogarle algo encarecidamente. No he dejado de darme cuenta que entre usted y Abraham se prepara una desavenencia. Somos tan pocos que hemos de mantenernos unidos y una desavenencia por motivos personales es lo que menos nos va a los psicoanalistas” (éste párrafo es casi idéntico en la que envía a Abraham), encargándose de aclarar que eso no implicaba que Abraham podía sustituirle en la primacía de los afectos. Al confrontar ello con la carta del 27-08-07, donde le decía que merecía todo su respeto y lo que dirá luego en otra carta a Jung el 17-01-09 en la que refiriéndose a América y sobre el pesimismo de Jones y el optimismo de Brill dirá: “Creo más bien a Jones. Opino también que cuando lleguen al núcleo sexual de nuestras doctrinas psicológicas nos dejarán caer” podemos aventurar que Freud sostenía esa relación sabiendo cuan necesario resultaba encontrar otros aliados. Está en la carta a Rank.

La diferencia de respuesta es idéntica en un aspecto y notoriamente distinta en otro. Jung contesta (7-05-08) hablando muy mal de Abraham, que tiene un franco desprecio por ciertas peculiaridades del colega, quien no es precisamente un gentleman. “A mi modo de ver, por tanto, lo peor que le puede suceder a uno”. Como semejanza dirá que Abraham tiene la costumbre de no citarlo. Abraham por su  parte le dice a Freud (11-05-08) que está dispuesto a acatar lo que él decida y que si había resuelto polemizar es porque tanto Bleuler como Jung, tenían la costumbre de no citarlo. Y dice aceptar que se lleva mejor con él que con Jung, que siente ese parentesco racial del cual le ha hablado Freud.

El final es acompañado de acusaciones y no queda claro si el delfín se fue o lo echaron. En algún momento de la correspondencia intervino la esposa de Jung, (Freud comenta esa carta con su mujer) y éste que poco tiempo antes, en junio de 1911, agradecía unas críticas al expresar “¡Muchas gracias por las críticas! Así tiene que ser un patrón como Dios manda”, le dice a fines de noviembre “De ahora en adelante puede usted estar seguro de que no abandonaré mi relación personal con usted” rogando que perdone sus errores. Sin embargo a los pocos días, en diciembre de 1912, le dirá que los pacientes con autoanálisis no llegan muy lejos: “no salen de su neurosis, como usted” y lo acusa de querer demasiado a los neuróticos y que juega a hacer de padre con sus hijos. (Freud comenta las oscilaciones de Jung en una carta del 8-12-12 a Jones, donde menciona que se comporta como un pillo y que “Las cartas que recibe de él son notables, cambian de la ternura a la insolencia más insoportable”). En su respuesta a comienzos del año siguiente, Freud le dice que está equivocado respecto al trato que brinda a sus pacientes y afirma que el que grita de manera incesante la normalidad hace sospechar que carece de conciencia de enfermedad, para solicitar a renglón seguido: “Le propongo, por tanto, cesar por completo nuestras relaciones privadas”. La última carta que Freud le envía le dice que el próximo número del Jahrbuch incluirá una crítica a su ensayo sobre la libido debido a la pluma de un redactor que no es otro que Ferenczi. Luego hay numerosas cartas de Jung que no tienen respuesta. En marzo de 1913 le comentó a Abraham: “…está trabajando más en beneficio propio que en el del psicoanálisis. Yo me he distanciado muchísimo, y ya no albergo sentimientos amistosos para con él”. En abril de 1914 Jung renunció a la presidencia de la Asociación y fue inmediatamente reemplazado por Abraham. Jones escribió a Freud de su alegría por la rendición de Jung, que la política fabiana por él propuesta ha quedado justificada.

Referencias

1. Freud, Sigmund – Jung Carl  G.: Correspondencia, Taurus, Madrid, 1974.

2. Freud, Sigmund – Abraham Karl: Correspondencia, Gedisa, 1977, Barcelona.

3. Freud, Sigmund – Jones Ernst: Correspondencia completa. Siruela Barcelona, 1991.

4. Freud Sigmund  - Ferenczi Sandor: Correspondencia completa Vol. I 1 1908-1911 y Vol I 2. 1912-1914, Siruela 1991, Barcelona.

5. Gay Peter: Freud una vida de nuestro tiempo, FCE, 1996.

6. Jung C. G: Recuerdos, sueños, pensamientos, Seix Barral, 1999, Barcelona.

[completeworksofsigmundfreud]

A Reply to Criticism of My Paper on Anxiety Neurosis (1895) - English summary

This article that Freud wrote was an answer to the criticism of Mr. Löwenfeld who points out that Freud is not able to prove his theories and so his main demand to separate certain neurotic states and neurasthenia falls with it.

Freud summarizes his findings he stressed in his original paper, mainly the separation of certain neurotic states from plain neurasthenia and their subordination under anxiety neurosis which cause is often the disturbance of healthy sexual life – either willing or unwilling sexual abstinence, sexual intercourse without gratification, coitus interruptus etc.

When he published this paper, he was aware that his main thought wasn’t anything new and the medicine already counts with, but Freud had the feeling that not enough. He is aware that the published article had a lot of deficiency – his research wasn’t founded by any evidence, mostly accidental and it didn’t contain any scientific methods. However, he didn’t have it in mind, the goal of the article was to catch the reader’s attention and let him to form his own opinion.

Then he analyses individual points of the criticism. Firstly, he mentions the preparedness on anxiety neurosis and the role of fear. Although the fear is the main cause and reason of hysteria and traumatic neurosis, it’s not the case of anxiety neurosis – that one is based on somatic sexual tension that was isolated from its physical nature. Löwenfeld argued against it that the anxiety attacks can be caused by fear alone and he cited one of his cases. Freud doesn’t deny this – he also cites some similar cases of his from his practice. But he points out that Löwenfeld didn’t go deeper with his cases while he did and he shows on them how they had the origin in the sexual instinct.

Second Löwenfeld’s point was that he was a witness of appearance and disappearance of the anxiety without altering the sexual life of the patient. Freud agrees with this but he suspects his critic that he solved only the current state and didn’t care about the problem further. He was also able to cure the anxiety states with the help of therapy and medication but he was also aware that it didn’t have to be the end of the problem. Moreover, the anxiety neurosis doesn’t develop out of nothing but there must be a summation of individual attacks – similarly to alcoholism. Löwenfeld could meet only with one individual attack. Freud also denies the theory of heredity of anxiety neurosis – heredity is not prone to alternation and if it’s possible to treat the anxiety neurosis with the help of therapy, then it can’t reside in it. He keeps standing behind his opinion that there exists a specific ethological factor for anxiety neurosis which can be replaced in its operation by stock noxae in quantitative sense, but not in the qualitative one and that this specific factor determines all other forms of neurosis – whether the neurotic illness manifests itself depends on the load of nerve system (proportion of the capacity of the burden).

The third reproach isn’t that interesting for Freud but he mentions it. Löwenfeld reproached him for that his theory lacks in the explanation of the occurrence and absence of anxiety attacks in its individual phases. He pointed out that the attacks occur in particular situation and if the patient avoids such situations or he’s able to paralyse the effect with the help of some precaution, the attacks won’t occur – independently from his sexual life. Freud answers on it that what Löwenfeld described is more similar to phobias that are causing the anxiety states but that aren’t and weren’t the subject of his theory. He also reproaches him in return that he didn’t notice the certain periodicity in the sudden anxiety attacks that occur mainly during the menstruation in women and men’s nocturnal emission.

Fourth and the last point is their dispute over the heredity – while Löwenfeld considers anxiety neurosis as a hereditary one, Freud doesn’t identify with it and he considers it as an acquired one. He explains his theory with the help of aetiology consisting of precondition (in the case of absence the effect never occurred but the precondition alone isn’t capable to cause the effect), specific cause (it never misses in a case when the effect happens and it needs only the required capacity to manifest itself), concurrent cause (it doesn’t have to be present and it’s not able to cause the effect by itself but it does operates alongside the precondition and specific cause in the aetiology equation), and precipitating or releasing cause. The only hereditary thing on this equation can be the precondition but that isn’t able to cause the effect, let alone effect with sexual subtext. Freud then finishes the paper with expression of hope that his findings will help to understand neurosis more than Löwenfeld’s effort screw on his theory of “combination of neurasthenic and hysterical symptoms on the form of an attack”.

[insoportablo]

referencias y notas freud ensayos teoría sexual (1905)

Las referencias contenidas en el primer ensayo se tomaron de las conocidas publicaciones de: 1.KRAFFT-EBBING, R. von (1893), Psychopathia Sexualis, 8ª ed., Stuttgart. (1ª ed., 1886) [Trad. cast. en El Ateneo; trad. francesa en ] 2. MOLL, A. (1898), Untersuchungen über die Libido sexualis, vol. 1, Berlin; (1909), Das Sexualleben des Kindes, Berlin. 3. MOEBIUS, P. J. (1900), “Über Entartung” (“Sobre la degeneración”), Grenzfragen des Nerven.- u. Seelenlebens, nº 3, p. 95, Wiesbaden. 4. ELLIS, Havelock (1897), Studies in the Psychologie of Sex, vol. I (en ediciones posteriores es el vol. II): Sexual Inversión, Londres (3ª ed., Filadelfia, 1915) [Trad. cast.: Inversión sexual, vol II de Estudios de psicología sexual, Madrid, Reus editores]. ———————-  (1898), “Auto-Erotism: a Psychological Study”, Alien. & Neurol., 19, p. 260. ———————-  (1903), Studies in the Psychology of Sex, vol III: Analysis of the Sexual Impulse; Love and Pain; the Sexual Impulse in Women, Filadelfia. (2ª ed. Filadelfia, 1913) [Trad. cast. Análisis del impulso sexual, vol III de Estudios de psicología sexual, Madrid, Reus editores.] 5. SCHRENCK-NOTZING, A. von (1899) “Literaturzusammenstellung über die Psychologie und Psychopathologie der Vita sexualis” (“Compilación de la literatura sobre la Psicología y la Psicopatología de la vida sexual”), Z. Hypnot., 9, p. 98. 6. LÖWENFELD, L. (1897) Lehrbuch der gesamten Psychotherapie, Wiesbade ——————-     (1904) Die psychischen Zwangerscheinungen, Wiesbaden. ——————-     (1906) Sexualleben und Nervenleiden, 4ª ed., Wiesbaden. 7. EULENBURG 8. BLOCH, I.  (1902-1903) Beiträge zur Ätiologie der Psychopathia sexualis (2 vols.), Dresde. 9. HIRSCHFELD, M. (1899), “Die objektive Diagnose der Homosexualität”, Jb. Sex. Zwischenstufen, 1, p. 8 ——————–    (1904), “Statische Untersuchungen über den Prozentsatz der Homosexuellen”, Jb. Sex. Zwischenstufen, 6. 10. Los trabajos del Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, publicado bajo la dirección del autor nombrado en último término. Puesto que en esas obras se consigna la restante bibliografía sobre el tema, puedo ahorrarme una referencia detallada. [Agregado en 1910:] Los conocimientos obtenidos por medio de la indagación psicoanalítica de invertidos se basan en las comunicaciones de I. SADGER y en mi propia observación.

[julliaberg]

Angel

[julliaberg]

[julliaberg]

Sims Question & Answer

I was tagged by @vil-lain thank you ❤

1. What is your sim’s favorite food?  Ratatouille

2. What is your sim’s favorite color?  Blue and orange

3. What is your sim’s zodiac sign?  Aquarius

4. Does your sim believe in “love at first sight”?  Oh yeah)) He's such a hopeless romantic^__^

5. What is your sim’s sexuality?  Heterosexual.

6. Is your Sim a cat or dog person? (or both?)  Cat as they are less of a hassle.

7. Adding to the previous question, if your sim were to have a cat and/or dog, what kind/breed(s) would it be?  In the future it will have black cat was Azazel, which he will pick up on the street.

8. Does your Sim have a best friend?  Liza-Lu de Rossi.

9. Does your Sim have a favorite life stage?

still ahead

10. What is your sim’s ethnicity? German

11. If your Sim could travel to anywhere in the world, where would they visit? India, China and Japan)) Angel just loves the East and everything connected with it))

12. If your Sim was a castaway on a distant, uncharted island, who would they bring?  Lily von Goebbels)) 13. Does your Sim have a favorite tv show and/or movie?  Yeah)) He likes intelligent TV show, and gaming entertainment. Loves the films of Takeshi Kitano and creativity of woody Allen)) 14. Does your sim believe in the “simulation theory”?  I think he's too lazy to think about it. 15. Does your Sim have a favorite kind of clothing to wear?  Sweatshirt with wings on the back)) 16. Does your Sim have a lucky charm?  Carries a runic sign of good luck

17. What kind of music or singers does your sim listen to?  Richard Wagner 18. Does your Sim have a favorite family activity to do together?  He loves Christmas, but hates his birthday. For him, this day is not and he doesn't really like to celebrate it.

19. What is your sim’s age?  28 years old. 20. Does your Sim have a dream job?  Always wanted to be a pianist)) 21. What is your sim’s favorite beverage?  All kinds of teas and coffees. 22. What is your sim’s favorite dessert?   medal candy from Switzerland 23. Does your Sim have any siblings? if so, do they get along with all of them?  Half-brother by father William. In childhood and adolescence was friendly, but will periodically suppressed Angela his success and character of the leader. 24. What activity/hobby makes your sim the happiest?  Music, meditation, not hasty nature walks, watching favorite movies and of course love)) 25. If you could meet your sim, would you be friends with them? 

Yes, of course)) I think he is a very sweet and nice person)) 

[julliaberg]

Angel

[julliaberg]

Louis  Löwenfeld ❤ ♛

[julliaberg]

Day 4 - On a date (1)

[julliaberg]

Day 29 - Doing something sweet

[julliaberg]

Day 28 - Doing something ridiculous

[julliaberg]

Day 27 - On one of their birthdays “Louis”