In Phenomenology "there Is No Object Without a Subject"

In our attempts to describe the inter subjective structure of the process through which a text is transferred and translated, our first problem is the fact that the whole text can never be perceived at any one time. In this respect it differs from given objects, which can generally be viewed or at least conceived as a whole. The 'object' of the text can only be imagined by way of different following phases of reading. We always stand outside the given object, whereas we are situated inside the liter¬ary text. The relation between text and reader is therefore quite different I from that between object and observer: instead of a subject-object rela¬tionship, there is a moving viewpoint which travels along inside that which it has to apprehend. This mode of grasping an object is unique to literature.

From this perspective in Husserl’s intentional theory of consciousness recommended that being and meaning are constantly bound up with one another. Thus ‘there is no object without a subject’ and no subject without an object. Object and subject are actually two parts of the same concept. A further problem consists in the fact that literary texts do not serve simply to indicate practically existing objects. Even though they may select objects from the practical world as it has seen in this discussion of the selection-they depragmatize them, for these objects are not to be denoted, but are to be changed. Connotation presup¬poses some form of reference that will indicate the specific meaning of the thing indicated. The literary text, however, takes its selected objects out of their pragmatic context and so destroys their novel frame of ref¬erence; the effect is to reveal aspects which had stayed veiled as long as the enclose of reference remained intact. In this way, the reader is given no chance to detach himself, as he would have if the text were merely denotative. Instead of finding out whether the text gives an accurate or inaccurate description