Analysis

What Dominique Pagani says

Dominique Pagani defines analysis in contrast to interpretation, and this contrast comes back from one session to another between 2016 and 2019. Interpretation always carries a share of subjectivity. Analysis, for its part, breaks things down, as is done in chemistry, and finds only what was already in the text1. It is objective in the way the sciences are2 and deals with the material signifier, so that it holds for everyone3. He takes a musical example: to say that at a given bar the music moves from major to minor is to speak objectively, in a way anyone can follow4. Discussing Nerval's Angélique, he proposes a method for comparing two texts: keep the nouns and set out the epithets and attributes in a two-way table5. He says he detests interpretation and sticks to analysis, except when the text itself requires interpreting6. Reading Kafka's "An Imperial Message", he asks that one speak only of what is objectively expressed, without looking for a meaning between the lines7.

1. 1#2.2 Entre crise et guerre : Philosopher ?15 Feb 2016 · 23:34
2. 2#4.2 Angélique (de Nerval)12 Nov 2017 · 22:17
3. 3#4.6 Angélique (de Nerval)15 Mar 2018 · 1:35:09
4. 4#4.2 Angélique (de Nerval)12 Nov 2017 · 27:22
5. 5#4.2 Angélique (de Nerval)12 Nov 2017 · 1:34:42
6. 6Schumann2 May 2019 · 29:35
7. 7#5.9 Kafka Un message impérial29 Jul 2019 · 16:14

Summary produced automatically from 7 of the passages below, to be reviewed; the numbers link to the moment in the session.