2007/03/12 Dusseldorf
Last hours
Dishonest dynamics
These are my last hours in Europe. The godson and his mother left for the Netherlands, I’m at Dusseldorf International Airport, watching a German man with a beard indulging in red wine.
I’m reading Freud these days -- this article in yesterday’s New York Times is worth reading for anybody interested in the ethics of family life:
‘“I think people no longer have a unitary idea that divorce inevitably disqualifies you, but they still look at the dynamics,” said Stephanie Coontz, of the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. “They are more disapproving of dishonest dynamics, by how someone handled his marriages, divorces, kids.”’
Freud’s discoveries have been ignored or are deliberately misunderstood.
[ Add comment ]
8 comments 
For Freud I can recommend to you ‘Freud on dr. Daniel Paul Schreber’, a case that has always interested me for oblivious reasons. Have a good flight.
disqualifies you to what? I seem to get lesser sense out of your blogs, mr. Arnon Grunberg.
I just heard that a panamanian aquiantance of me won the lotery, 2 million dollar. He never even wanted money.
I just heard that a panamanian aquiantance of me won the lotery, 2 million dollar. He never even wanted money.
Dens
Read the article and you know for what you will be disqualified.In case you don't have time to read the article, let me help you: disqualifies you to run for president.
It is like inhaling, it disqualifies you for a presidency. Once, people rather trust a man who faked smoking, unbelievable.
"Freud’s discoveries have been ignored or are deliberately misunderstood."
You are not the first one to make this remark. W.F. Hermans as well was very much annoyed by the lack of knowledge on Freud among the general public.
You have stated before it is an honorable gesture when one corrects his own (linguistic) mistakes. Every now and then someone commits himself to yours on: http://www.hhbest.nl/wartaal/taal.html
Just to avoid any misunderstandings: I am not in any way related to the website mentioned above.
If I have failed to respect English grammar/spelling rules: I appologize.
English isn't my mothertongue. It goes without saying that I appreciate it very much when someone takes the time to point out my shortcomings.
You are not the first one to make this remark. W.F. Hermans as well was very much annoyed by the lack of knowledge on Freud among the general public.
You have stated before it is an honorable gesture when one corrects his own (linguistic) mistakes. Every now and then someone commits himself to yours on: http://www.hhbest.nl/wartaal/taal.html
Just to avoid any misunderstandings: I am not in any way related to the website mentioned above.
If I have failed to respect English grammar/spelling rules: I appologize.
English isn't my mothertongue. It goes without saying that I appreciate it very much when someone takes the time to point out my shortcomings.
It's a rather good article, indeed. My mistake for not reading. Thanks for pointing that out.
@Jan Thys
I somehow misread your "oblivious" as "obvious". How freudian does it get? I once believed that god was turning me into a man to have sex with women. But later I realised god was nature.
I somehow misread your "oblivious" as "obvious". How freudian does it get? I once believed that god was turning me into a man to have sex with women. But later I realised god was nature.
@Dens,
By your misread you discovered my error. Indeed it has to be ‘obvious’ (I prefer to blame MSWord2003 for the latter).
By your misread you discovered my error. Indeed it has to be ‘obvious’ (I prefer to blame MSWord2003 for the latter).
[ Add comment ]
