Meeting ones
1-Where is an affect? It might force every individual into a place beyond themselves, but that still does not say where it itself lurks.
In a sense this ‘within’ is the wrong questions. The affect s caught up in a conversation between two unequal partners. On the one hand there is the power of the immediate to raise in another a feeling, and on the other there are the deep accords of the mutuality of individuals. That is the ability of humans to naturally emphasize with one another and be caught up in each other.
The problem of the affect is thee problem of accord.
That is these two left to themselves need not agree or cooperate in any great measure. Indeed there is a natural indifference between them. This in difference springs from the fact that an expression always operates on the immediate and very flirty. It is necessarily valued an knows it. It is the power then of the communicative richoet. Back and forward, with nothing need stopping in the individual. It is a ball breaker that need not care over much for any of the individuals it takes up in its sway.
The power of the mutual friend is the power of secretes to slowly warp and warp across many levels peoples behaviour. We know there is something shared, something between us, and slowly that something grows, challenges and changes us. We are caught up in the prism of its hope and help.
It is slow and careful of individuality where the expression is flighty and quick. It listens to folk where the expression can listen to no one, particularly not itself, the two might be locked forever in the same house and caught in the same fate (there might even be a bit of the mutual friend that cannot operate without the expression) and yet that dies not mean the two need agree.
2- But this does not mean they can directly meet at the affect. On the contrary the two need tolled up another matter first. The power of the expression lies in forcing others dance to its passionate tunes It in a sense need no affect and is even a war with it. The affect would want to fall of the expression from the outside and make it fold back into itself. It would therefore make the passionate not merely another world that the expressions wants other to inhabit (the world that passion makes then operate according to), but would want that sharing of the another world genuine. Would then want tit to feedback into the expression itself. The expression will have to be itself responding to and changing through the other. It othering must been be anothered.
The trouble is then how can t be forced of the power and magic pf the passion . That is the power and magic of obliging another to dance according to ones own tune : The power and magic of adding direction and spin into a world, and so making the world as are.
How can the affect with its giddily ability in the breasts of others to force a world view on them get responsibility?
The answer is in a sense also given in the nature of passions. The passions power I to clutch at a world. The power of the expression is to hover always between. If then a passion makes or reflect of forces onto other a world, a power a set of circumstances then this very individuality is enough. It patterns or forces the world to be as demands.
The very singularity of this world, this world of passionate (even the limiting case of this world – the world rendered agreeable to the expression alone) I enough to make the expression jumpy. It knows that the very singularity of such world is problematic, it cannot be allowed simply. The expression has not rights to force a single world and everyone else – even though it have the means to do it. It respects then the multilayered fissuring of the mutual too much for that. It knows the hidden exchanges there are so many different levels and powers, ad all ought to be allowed for and many might ought to be articulated and played across. Powers are like that,
3-But then how does the affect break into the expressive little world?
The initial answer is of course the echo. The affect echoes the expressive. In that it too has an ability to create in others affects. And yet its affects are different in three main ways.
Firstly although it too is ‘boofer’ it always allows the effect it has to loop back into what it s. I therefore helps and is helped. it is open to other, and o their abilities. It forces the response and then acts of that forcing. Everyone might therefore look to it, and yet in that look it forces the everyone o respond and open themselves for it and through it. It challenges even the most empty headed coxcomb to respond, and then responds to the challenge. The affect is therefore able to change what it is, and how it manifests. By the river she I a quiet prophet. In the city a factory and help meet, up the river the quiet companion of the exclaimed. She is flexible and evolves therefore across time and through circumstance, and yet the basic underlying power to hook others into exchanges it there.
Secondly the boofer lady of the affect is vulnerable in a way that the expression herself is not. she is always open to exchange . this opening will therefore allow others into her world, and given then power over her. A power which is therefore available for others to claim s their own and miss use. A passionate individual might then feel the intoxication of this power and claim it for their own. They might want it and it alone, and the affect has little of not power to reset this claim save flight. How can she resist when her power leis in hooking into others/
Faced with a powerful another she hooks I, as is caught up in their demands in their myths. She changes herself, and yet is they do not change if they choose merely to use her she is caught.
Here of course there are levels to the danger. On the abstract level it is clear she can resist in flight the powers of the passionate individual In himself he is clumsily, and see knows him for what he is. The problem come when the individual is also hooked into affects (as most individuals are) . That’s then a individuals at times is open to that which ruse between, and at times not so open such an individual and such a set of partial exchanges is then a perpetual perplex fo the mind of the affecter. They open to it and mistrust it They are always vulnerable to finding themselves where they do not want o be – and in a series of exchanges that only help that individual that seeks always o own them, and control them. That individual that insists that every exchange ultimately in about them.
That is the real danger to the affect is that as it is in form the same as a passion, others will claim the affective the exchange to be what they are- to be their passionate. This claim is of course strengthen by the fact that such a claim rests upon the deep claim or right to claim the power to step beyond every world. The affective take one beyond and so does the passion. There is nothing then ever stopping one claiming that the beyond one is within it the same beyond in each case. One might grab hold of the affective, produce the capturing passionate and claim it for ones own.
The same trap therefore face at this point the affecting and the expressive- the trap that anthers passionate will make them appear what they are not (quite) or not at all.
Thirdly the affective is indomitable in a way the expressions is not. The power of the expression is its power to evoke in others response. The power of the passionate is to feed responses back change across them? It might then be vulnerable and yet it does not simply, ever give up. I might be down on its luck and yet it is always open to hope and to change. It knows always that it has a power to change others, even if this power is not exercises. As such it is free to understand individuals at a very different place and through a different prism that the expression. The expressions act and is gone. The affect understands humans as project.
The affective mind knows that merely changing another is not enough, one had to do it in the right manner and the right way. I might then sweep you up know to the ruin of us both, while if I wait for another time another occasion we might be together forever. The power of the effect is therefore h power of choice.
That is the affective always exists suspended between different universe, universes where to act now or act then are quite different actions and have very different responses. It allows therefore always theirs within itself, and within its action – other power to be different.
As such the affective is of course often if not habitually caught within a suspension of action, It is therefore caught in not knowing how or where to act. I knows or has an idea of the universes it prefers, the ones it want to lead to and they cannot simply make them. It needs always to have patients to wait until the right occasion merges for the path and the exchange to be effected. The affect therefore will nee to wait on event.
3-Being boofer therefore does not make the expression and the affect the same. And yet this non-sameness then opens the expressions mind to other ways it might be. That it understands its effects not merely as the immediate power of another, but in the way that power reflect back into the expression it pulls and the effect this expression has. That is it frees it from having to live in the one world. What expression save the hackney and live in the one world after all? To look at another face is to have an idea of what they are saying and yet what that idea is complex, and changing as they change or I change. The smile which communicate the single things is a mere characture and not a genuine ambivalent character. The real expression is therefore opened in the power to run across different opening and differing possible for the same effect and the same look.
The expression therefore gins it maturity when it need not be simply. I changes as the other changes and can mean many different things at differing times. A smile and yet what that smile means depends in part on what you do. Your reaction and my expression are a part in the same picture. The expression might contain another world or it might merely be a blank canvas – which and what it is cannot be simply read of a me, and is never simply available to a you. It must rather become something the pair of us create. The power of the expression is therefore the power to articulate in the look a number of complex worlds. These world are given marching order in the fact I present in the world, Others respond then to them and we counter response. And worlds are made and exploded.
The expression is in short the mirror not of the passing but the mutual as such. That is thaw ability of humans to open and force other to open to myriad worlds, and see those world within the simple expression (Deleuzse is bang on here). To express is not to community but to open on encourage others to respond, others to look, others to participate n the world one contains in ones look.
The maturity therefore of the expression lie in realizing this fact. That is realizing it need not be caught in the directly world of me. It lies therefore n the power to transcend the one individuality, and become merely a somebody, who is open then to prediction and powers.
4- the expressive needs therefore to gain the affective It is not naturally there. In gaining it is becomes then as one half of the affective picture- the other half is of course the multilayered anarchy of he mutual friend. This layering opens up any and complex exchanges in many different levels, n all of which the expressive face is put and could be. The mutual therefore comes utterly into its own to the expressive. As long is it is caught in the prism of the mutual it will know where it s, and defy being caught in the single world it actual abhors. The mutual therefore refract the expressive and always it a freedom to resist across world, the freedom the active itself opened out.
5- But what of the affective herself? In a sense it is not changed by has experience this setting the world t rights. It is merely what it was the lost power to force others to change and the openness o change in the process. A power hidden upstream in our natures, a power that cannot he simply allowed to flourished, as if it id it looses its power to prophecy and to recreate….