WK7-DQ

Interpretation: Page 124 states: "certain interpretive conventions become in certain contexts the privileged way of making sense of texts." How does this idea relate to the idea of common sense? Is it possible to reach a point where theorists will say that it is best to use x critical lense to analyze a text?

On page 128 it is stated that "theories of interpretation function not so much as constraints on reading as resources for arguing". Does this imply that the idea of critical theory is not to ultimately reach one main or "correct" interpretation, but to practice the art of argument and persuasion that the type of critical theory you are using to analyze a text is the best?

On page 124 '' Identfiying puns may be acceptable for interpreting ancient and contemporary graffiti but not for reading constitutions. Allegorizing may be appropriate poetry and scripture but not for international treaties. Can't we use allegorizing to interpret the ancient graffiti or the reading constitutions?

Can we use all of the measurements and the //"Interpretative conventions"// to interpret an oral rather that a written text? Given that the chapter dealt with translating and explicating written texts. If yes, how would it be?

Unconscious: How does the idea on 149 "the unconscious is by definition unseeable; an existence is inferred (rather than empirally demonstrated) by occurrences in life which are not consciously motivated" relate to literature and our understanding of meaning when considered with the chapters we have read about Authors, Authority, and Intention? How can we consider something beyond our own personal control, the unconscious, while trying to determine where meaning actually comes from?

This chapter seems to be saying that the unconscious is always the dominant force - when it wants to be known, it will make itself known through metaphors and slips of the tongue - how does this impact the way we express ourselves? Do we ever truly know what we are trying to say, or do we need an outsider to analyze all of our thoughts, actions and words for the underlying message?

On page 157, for Hegel '' The master slave conflict is born of the confrontation between the two consciousnesses, each seeking to be recognized as primary by the others. Obviously one will win and one will lose. The __#|winner__ will become the master of the loser''. As unconscious works while consciousness sleep, can we consider that consciousness appears to be the master of psyche as a determiner of psyhic activity?