Chapter 2 of the text discusses the idea of Techne and Kairo using Greek mythology as a base for presenting the two concepts. The term techne doesn't seem to be specifically designated to be known ass art, but the term seem to waver around many different understandings, as shown in the text. The author emphasize that Techne is "associated with deception" or cunning, than she jumps to another meaning saying that techne is "set of rules, system or method of making or doing". The last implication of techne that she stated is" craft or trade that can generate economic capital".
The next topic she discusses is Kairo, which she stated as time. By combining time and art there can be "profit", to simply this she stated the qoute "time is money". Learn how to take the opportune timing and "art" then profit can be made. In relation with kairo, techne is never absolute or specifically define, because time changes and thus so will the techne. My opinion of her reason for writing this book, is to present the ideas that there are various ways the literate and contextual world represents arts and craft. She also present the concept that "art" is more rhetoric than many may think, but also impliment the idea that through the strives to find true art, there could be a possiblity to go away from rhetoric and become more philosophical.

terms- cunning, profit and capital, deception and philosophy, the many meanings of techne, 
through tthe various definitions and attempts of explaining techne, she present teh idea of cunning and these terms, but I could hardly come to the conclusion that techne is define as art. but, by accepting that techne does mean art, then these terms would become understandable.
The first reading and this reading are glued together through the idea of rhetoric, but that seems to be about it. Hauser sticks to the literal meaning of rhetoric, meaning the way people communicate(social and written), but this reading touches more on the idea of art and crafts.

The paragraph that interest me the most is on page 55, when she inserted the quotes from Georgia. The paragraph still discusses the many differnt meaning of techne, and how to the banausic class, techne is a mean of measuring economic and social status(discourse). Then she leaps to plato idea of techne(professional knowledge). My interests arises twoards the end of the paragraph as the idea of philosophying leaped into the context of techne. How do do we know whether we are philosophying or using rhetoric without crossing the line between the two, meaning philosophying and staying within the rhetoric limits? is there a limit to rhetoric?