Maria Jonsson- the mystical

Found this and took an excerpt when I looked up the hermeneutics of suspicion
The Hermeneutics of Suspicion: A Case
Study from Hinduism
Arvind Sharma
McGill University
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Consciousness, which was once considered to be perceptually transparent in a Cartesian manner and linguistically transparent in a Wittgensteinian way, is now considered to consist primarily of the relationship between the hidden and the shown, between what is concealed and what is revealed.2 Consciousness therefore needs decoding, and so also the texts which embody it. This understanding of consciousness is the fundamental assumption underlying the “hermeneutics of suspicion” as it was espoused by Paul Ricœur, who referred repeatedly to the three “masters of suspicion”: Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud.3 While these three might
appear “seemingly mutually exclusive,”4 for all three “the fundamental category of consciousness is the relation of hidden-shown or, if you prefer simulated-manifested.”5 The basic hermeneutical implication of their thought points in the same direction—a text may not be taken at its face value, indeed the face of a text may be no more than a mask which conceals underlying socio-economic, political, and psychological realities in such a way as to obscure them, or render them more palatable, if not more acceptable.

A hermeneutics of suspicion may be said to occupy a mediate horizon as distinguished from the immediate and the ultimate, where the immediate involves only a literal reading of the text and the ultimate a deeper meaning intended by the author. While the “hermeneutics of suspicion” also seeks to determine a non-evident meaning, such a hermeneutics focuses on a meaning which is different from the author’s intention, whether evident or hidden.

To me, it seems unnecessary to assume that the hermeneutics of suspicion always discloses that which is negative behind a text. It will be my contention that if the rigorous scrutiny of the hermeneutics of suspicion can reveal the negative implications and realities which lie behind a text that on the surface appears to be positive, then it is equally possible that such hermeneutics may also disclose the positive implications which might lie behind a text that on the surface
appears to be negative.

I would like to know what art Cavell wrote about as potentially fraudulent. What music? Does he say?
The risk of art is is very prevalent, and I think of critics, collectors, gallerists and everyone who profits from others art making are afraid of the artist potentially being fraudulent, and as powerful players they are in the game of making the fraud work or not, they can also be fooled and made to look stupid if the artist isn't the "real thing". But this is different perhaps of the possibly fraudulent experience of the artwork itself.

The fraudulence, of not knowing if one has interpreted it right, is one of the great things with art, like solving a mystery. I like the Susan Sontag text a lot and what she writes about French poetry, how silence in poetry reinstated the magic of the word and escaped the rough grip of interpretation. You are told sometimes in advise to your practice to be clear about content, your opinion, and some don't want to hear the word ambivalence, but if the meaning is not entirely clear, is something else spelled out?

Gaugain said: Paint what you see

The inauguration poet Elizabeth Alexander has a poem with the name of (and now I can't find it) an african poet who said: write about what you don't understand, or: write about what you want to understand.

I think about art that is provocative, that can stem from frustration over some situation, from others or ones own prejudices. That art want to create a reaction from it's viewer, can seem offensive and prejudiced at first but can hide a "positive" reason for doing the work, or problematizing the ambivalence to once own feelings toward something that can seem sexist, racist, homofobic.
Something that can be an interesting complex problem can be shunted or told inappropriate in an academic setting, the artist can be swayed away from this kind of work as with this kind of work he/she ethically is on the line too. Susan Sontag writes "Art is useful after all, Aristotle counters, medicinally useful in that it arouses and purges dangeous emotions."



In the Mca parking lot there's an Oscar Wilde quote that say if artists saw the world the way it really was they wouldn't be artists.

Once on the way to go running in the park i saw something white in the bushes. It was a sperm, a white plastic sperm the size of my palm, very graphic, very cute, with a smiley face and white liquid inside. I hid it and I later came back to collect it. On my walk back home a female orgasm echoed between the walls of the buildings lining the street and I thought this is just too good, and here I am with the sperm in my bag.
I was amazed by this little ting, What is it, I wondered.
I like that state of wonderment, of What does this mean?
Then later my friend told me to open it up, something I hadn't thought of, and I screwed it's head off and inside was some milky alcohol, for some hen night, I felt cheated. Opening did that.The spell of fascination for the objects mysterious qualities was broken.


I think about consciousness-true,false, authentic- paranoia- Merleau-Ponty says paranoia is bad, but is it? Or is it the need to solve it that is bad? It's as if expecting crime is on default, as a reaction to an inherent impulse to commit crime. Is suspicion bad? Would we like to leave the mystery unresolved when we (I) feel ( In crime fiction) find the resolve is the inevitable and most boring part?