Even granting differences between text and event, one may wonder why anyone is surprised by the internecine battles of criticism. Perhaps Simon would argue that the difference between text and event or between text and the structure of thought or of matter makes all the difference. In that case, he and I could agree to disagree. But then he leaves the matter there, at a point where the critic well might wish to take it up. Formalist criticism, however resolutely descriptive of things in a certain text as they are perceived really to be, presupposes that judgments of literary value rest on formal criteria.
Affective criticism presupposes that such judgments rest on affective criteria.
And so on. But I agree that some of these disputes are waged more for the purposes of being disputatious than for every other reason. A more modest goal than completely peaceful coexistence, and a more realizable one, is a better understanding of where peaceful coexistence can best be encouraged and perhaps achieved.