"one's homeland"

[Terrance]

s~Z wrote:
> 
> In light of Doug's continued appeal to a majority of readers as some
> evidence that the few of us who disagree are obviously deluded, I offer this
> quote from 1984. Apologies if terrance or someone else already cited this:
> 
> O'Brien to Winston:
> 
> You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its
> own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When
> you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that
> everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that
> reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.
> Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon
> perishes; only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal.


Putting *that* paragraph aside for a moment and trying to move on as it
were, we might need agree to disagree about something very fundamental:
one can reject the notion that the autonomous text embodies a single
determinate meaning. However, and unfortunately, for some readers the
idea of a potentially pluralistic interpretation of the text invites a
complete relativism. Some, especially those influenced by the schools of
psychoanalysis that were highly influential during the 1960s, espouse a
complete relativism. For others,  a dyadic view (Both/And or words that
"do double duty" etc.) of the polysemous character of language provides
an opportunity to be quite playful, exploring the infinite possibilities
of the text. Others, and you seem to be suggesting as much, argue that
the text carries its own contradictions and thus conclude that
interpretation necessarily ends in a logical impasse. 





1. can we agree to allow for the possibility of equally valid
alternative interpretations.  And that some readings, some
interpretations are better than others. 

2. can we agree (if only so that debate may proceed) on criteria for
interpretation. 
For example, while I may not agree with Paul N.'s conclusion, unless I
allow that his "narrative" approach is a valid approach and worth
considering, there is no point in our discussing the text under
consideration.