Schemata for constructing  Affects.

How do I enter into an take apart in an affect? What does one rally feel like to be within.. Or better hw do I tell the affect dimension of my passions form their more stroppy and noisy passionate one. Perhaps there are three rules for thumb.

Rule 1: Building the story.

The arch way of creating ones passions as affect it to set the passions in a domain other than ones mind, ad then invite others into the domain. Ones feelings stop then being about ones own nature. They become the mere facts in a story: Other characters exist as other people or oneself as other to take up ones own character and react to them, in an endless role play.

There are two critical aspects to this sharing.

On the one and the feelings that are taken up and contained are contained not as my feeling, my passions, so much as a character. They are then set up with their own ability to perceive and their own reactions. As a character they are therefore subject t to change and evolution. They need not be stuck as a single character, a facet or person in  novel. They can and will always change To create a feeling is therefore o create an another h is a real enough. They might (you never know) end up more real than you are.

On the other this creation is never personal and never fixed. One does not have an affect  as a self abuse. It is always in the sharing that they are formed. The characters then most be shared with others who respond to them. What they are is therefore never fixed. I revolves and re-evolves across time. It is not a thing fixed or a time passions sealed. What is mortems sharing is hard wired into eh feeling itself. As I am passionate I share my feelings and revel in that sharing. I know then I must and should share it. I can do no other than share them. They make no sense alone.

Ones own feelings therefore become a public s space which one does not totally own anymore. They are really the stuff of stories. in these stories or perhaps better and the there is no doubt an umbrella of legends and feelings. One therefore is a character in a known tale This reliance then serves as the holding function to the tale. The point around which the entire will and must return and re-return. The truth o the matter is therefore the change and recharge – the exchange around the stand point.

This type of affect are the only quasi open. Although there will be more than one participants the relationships formed are tricky for any third party. The language develops therefore an is run with, and cannot be easily or without shame joined by late arrivals.

This is the strategy of loves or parents – the strategy of intense relationship  – where it can take  a lo t of trust and kindness for others to join (but of course theoretically at least they can…)

The second strategy relies upon history.

A people has a certain passionate power in the mind. It has therefore the ability to reach beyond any one nature. This is at once a passionate an a an affective role.

The passionate is that the people with their history present a clear target for passions both in me and in others. I can therefore very easily ham up the part or others can respond to me as if only the history was important. The history therefore defines the feeling, and  no further exchange is possible. We know our parts, we have our passions and we must respond.

Each person therefore finds his place amongst the people or reacts to another in he knowledge that thy are a people, and never asks or anything more. Individuality and individual response in then taken to be the living embodiment of history and its owner. We are all little passion flowers because history has made s so. How could we be different the question is asked.

How indeed.

Maybe though the affect suggests living history really ought not to be like that history can of course hold  identity down as a passion. It is that set of experience that our over and fixed, and which then wrap passions and which wraps up. However if one s still apart in that history what changes?

Again two things clearly shift in their power.

On the hand the one must challenge how one feels. Ones feeling are not the product of a history, but are rather something that enrich it and ought to be worthy of it. Ones own feelings therefore step being ones own. The become the blocs for a history. There power and their passions, their very complexity becomes the stuff that ought to be folded up and folded into that  external history. One own identity once again slips by in the power and the passion to make p a  past-  or make up to a past.

On the other the fact that one is a part of this history both  open relationships with other shares in that history Together one ought to be worthy of it. One ought to be making it up, But also it challenges ones feelings for other peoples outside that history. One invites them into rethinking what they thought they knew about that history. They become then a part of it. The history of a people is of course never owned by that people alone. What that history is made in the reaction of that people to others. To create then an affect through that history is to welcome in others into their roles. It is to make those roles worth of being.

The historical becomes then an adjunct to live within. A history a reaching beyond and sharing the name to of a story but a past.

The difference between these last two affects leis in the point of balance The story balances around character and a basic plotline. There is therefore a centre of gravity to the tale. The past lacks any such centre or rather it carries it slow centre with it. The fact then that there ahs been a history up to this point becomes the pointer for further history. It becomes then the story. A story the is being always added to. Or again the as becomes the thing always change

In always being challenged. History is therefore the deliberate re-writing of the plot  in he name of the plot. Thing become less than they should be and never quite what they has seemed.

The third strategy is the oddest and the most open. Most feelings are weird. They are really not that like a pain .While it is usually never right to simply claim there is a pain in the room (it is never wholly wrong to say such). With feeling if they are affects it is utterly correct to say that there is a feeling or a nexus of feelings within a room. Nothing about these feelings need to be simple- nothing owned. All parents therefore commune with their child but also with themselves as a child and with themselves as their child. Likewise all children borrow their parents adult and worry as if they were a parent about their childish adults. The roles free flow.

Without his free flow educations impossible. The is unless one take son and tries the knowledge one is given for size it is impossible to ever actually learn it.

Individual are therefore as far away for audio type writers or single part players as one could hope.

It is always in pretending to be you That I create more to me – and alter also what you are.

One does always need to listen so carefully o what others say when  they are describing there nearest and dearest. I is never clear which is them and which is the other. Or better the affects they are describing are always very much of the ‘there is a pain in the room’ variety. They are something shared.

This sharing might be direct (they both might t times follow the affects path). But it is usually more complex than that. It is usually that whatever feelings they have are created within a complex dynamic, and therefore cannot be separated from their context. They are only possible therefore in thinking of that other trough which they were conjured. To relate to them is therefore to relate to this other as well. Affects them become rather complex affairs. Or better the are the quick sand of emotions. Another on being told of the affect is dragged in. They are encourage to react (a new affect is being built), and yet it is never really that clear exactly what or to whom they are reacting. To another surely, but also to that others other and so to the indivisible.

They will then find a part or a role to play in this shifting landscape of peoples and feelings and interactions, not all of which is ever stated or thought.

In a sense then this landscape is always affective. Ones own passions would soon one becomes lost in those turgid streams of intense feeling we all call human nature. What one needs rather to allow for is the fact that another, particularly not ones own or others feeling is ever really their own. One is always caught in the maze of perceptions (whose reality is greater than oneself0 and the spinning of complex feelings which come into and come through those perceptions.

The affective is that nightmare or dreamland we always are within.

It is nothing odd-  it merely actually names where we are most to the time.

The problem is of course that we are cretinous in understanding this land.

We like when we think o have a world and to be able to stop thinking. We like or play the myth of passion. The myth that thee is a world to which re respond as if it were jus but there. we become strangely resentful and problematic when this is not the case. Even more oddly  we want to medicalize  and’ understand’ the natural and incomprehensible gap opened in the affect.

To borrow another’s clothes to have feelings that one cannot simply own, that were never ones own alone is nothing odd (unless they are destabilized) they are rather natural and normal. It is the strident calls for the passionate self which is self contained that is weird.

Who in their same mind would wan such a sealed self? Or better why would one want one save in their rearish  moments when one is under attack – when things are to complex and therefore one needs a refuge from oneself and from the world. The self is then world best hide out. Removed in the absolute secret of itself (as an affect) for everything. The invisible element which can overfloat if allowed. And this is dandy

More creatively it is the role o this self to be our own listener. That is we tell ourselves things as we would tell a third party – the foreknowledge that once a passion it turned into words and felt that way, it is to a degree contained. If nothing else it is riveted into a telling. It becomes then a part in a relationship (which myself or with another). It becomes a currency. It can then be treated as some kind of affect. That is reckoned up and used or called upon called upon at certain times. Its is fused therefore into something discrete something more manageable.  

The self is then an adjunctive of the other – another other or myself as other where I can (to  a limited degree and it is only limited) fuse down feelings. We all need a place to run to – a home. And yet that does not mean that hoe is the only thing we are – or event ht it gives us a right over and above the affects or even that it is anything more than a fairly specialized affect. We are as  a place in ourselves at time. Most of the time however we are not in this at all. We are rather caught up in the needless prisms of others through which we feel and across which our being holds its goods and becomes what it is not. To become as another, in an affect – to be allowed never to simply feel or simply be-  tat is creativity indeed. The pesky self would always crowd such style.

Once then the affective is creates, and witnessed by whatever audience (even dolls with their eyes shinning) who knows where one will end up - as Affects reach out to confuse and breed in that confusion.?