differences

So let's have one last go at this.

Differences.  It undeniably exists in some form or another, whether that be biologically or culturally.  I liked the way toolbox defined interpretation.  "Interpretation is best understood as a response, and certainly that response should be aware of the contexts-race, gender, and class position."  I really want to disagree with the second part, but I know that's not possible.  When we read stories, we usually have to consider the context, but I think the works that need the most grounding in context are those that were created in a time a turmoil for a specific purpose or as a response to a specific event.  For example, "Harry Potter" require significantly less context because J.K. Rowling has constructed the story from her imagination, which can't really isn't a context... Something like the Declaration of Independence or even Huckleberry Finn requires much more context because one deals with the Revolutionary times and the other with slavery and freedom.  We need background to understand these works to the fullest extent.
Having context contradicts the notion that there is "nothing outside the text."  Maybe it varies from piece to piece, but I tend to agree with Derrida more than toolbox.  Books like "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Huckleberry Finn" are still culturally relevant or at least they still have impact.  They still resonate with people  today regardless of social situation.  People today don't own slaves or paddle down rivers, but they still read the books and understand them.

There's also the issue of essentialism.  Toolbox says that biology is a limitation.  I do believe in essentialism in the sense that we have a core and a set of characteristics that are given to us by what we call "biology."  I think biology IS culturally constructed but only up to a point.  Subjects such as literature have been more fluid as opposed to biology.  It's not a limitation in my eyes, just guidelines, like speed limits are guidelines.
From the time we are born as male or female, dark skin, tan skin, or light skin, we start to branch out.  We start to acquire our identity or mold it.  I do believe the starting line starts with biology, so in that sense, it's not a limitation but a beginning.   We change so much, especially physically, so how can that be a limitation?  I do think some people may follow the guidelines too rigidly.  In this sense, it can hold people back because that's all they've ever know, that's the only context they were given.  At the core of things, I don't think it matters or at least it shouldn't.  Then again differences like race, gender, and class have their merit.  They do create a little trouble and a lot of controversy, but we as humans are what we are today because of those differences.  A world without those conflicts is essentially predictable, routine, and lifeless.       

Time

I'd like to give a little attention to my old friend Time.  We've undoubtedly all been very acquainted with it.
Toolbox talks about how time for us is a social construct as well, and it is determined by our individual actions and circumstances.  The concept of time is difficult to grasp unless we go with what has already been determined like seconds and minutes.  Our perception of time is skewed and warped by the events in our everyday lives.  I think time in it's most "natural" sense though, in it's "organic" form is perhaps a bit more consistent.
While I believe in the cultural construction of time, I cannot abandon my organic perspective of it.  Humans have a naturally instinctive sense of time I believe, but there are factors that change it.  In my mathematics class in high school, we looked at a function that determined how as a person progresses with age, their sense of time shortens.  People of a certain age can more accurately perceive the sense of time in accordance to the set minutes and seconds.    I see the problem that "minutes" and "seconds" are a socially created, so in this sense time can't be completely organic.  Then, consider this: in my biology class in high school, I learned that we have this thing called a "circadian rhythm" that our bodies naturally adjust to.  It's almost like a cyclic 24 hour clock.  Plants and animals can sense the time of day and adjust physically to it.  Plants, like a sunflower can follow the passage of the sun throughout the day, "naturally."  When I say "naturally," it's more like a chemical reaction, but most things in life are chemical reactions of some sort.  We can't change when the sun or the moon moves.  We're too insignificant and powerless to change time as a whole, but in our own little niche, in our own little world, we have somehow managed to do so.  If we only look at "our world" though, I think that's too myopic.  Myopia is close sightedness.  It is zooming the camera in where we only focus on one thing, and it doesn't offer the whole picture.  

I think we as humans make time unnatural. It's not good or bad, just different from what it was.  It would be funny and ironic to think of time as something that changes when it changes things.