Absolute Morality...again.

Um, just because one particular word doesn't need interpretation doesn't mean other particular words don't.

What do you mean by "meaning... about texts?"

Sounds like you want to go back to modernism before postmodernism came along and made rational thought impossible. I don't know if there was a school of literary criticism then with a name of its own, you would I suppose, though maybe your "literalism" would suffice for it, but this post-structuralism -- must be the same as deconstructuralism -- just set out to dismantle language's connection to reality and the very fabric of meaning we all depend on.

Where did I say that? Can you link to it? I don't recognize it.

There's no way to avoid interpretation this side of the Kingdom of God.

How do you measure / judge "goodness"?

Is this an existing theory or one you are developing?

Are you defining concept as something non verbal?

Or are you thinking of something along the lines of Plato's archetypes, perhaps?

"Tomato" is a word for a thing you can eat. I ask you for a tomato and you hand me an apple we have had an unsuccesful communication

I'm talking about the kind of interpretation where it's hard to get at the objective or original meaning, the meaning intended by the author, and this is shown in the fact that people naturally read different meanings into it

(As I understand deconstructionism, it is based on a Marxist type of system, by which texts are interpreted as being "really" about class struggles rather than what they are ostensibly about, and an oppressor and oppressed class are ferreted out, no matter what the text is.)

"means" is a difficult criterion, and to mean exactly the same thing seems very difficult. If you want everyone to select a tomato from a group of items that is one thing,but what about people who dislike tomatos vs. those who love them? What about those who believe they are poisonous vs. those who believe they are healthy? Given the individual conditionings how can tomato mean the exact same thing to any two people. I hold it is impossible. On the other hand it is reasonable to expect a large group of people to accurately identify a tomato even though they will have unique responses and associations to it.

Derrida, Foucault, Lacan et. al.

That's because they're trying to cram reality into their ideology

People do decide for themselves what is right or wrong... but there are definite consequences when their view of right and wrong diverges from the consensus.

Well, I hope then that what you are calling "concept" is a functional identification rather than some absolute ideal of tomato in itself.