The Road between the Words.

Part 1 :Introduction:  Event and affect.

How is the affect so very different from the even therefore? That is the even is the path the road between the universes. The element within is in all universes and none. It is not the mapper, the monad or human which can be mapped to different places and in different universes, but rather the vectors that plot causes between these different places in the multi-verse. But given his is not the affect the  same? This as a problem to beset Deleuze.

We wanted only the event to be the portal between the worlds, in did not really want here affect as well. Affects therefore become (eventually) different from events and as possible shorn of virtuality, possible which inhabit the single universe giving t or opening it another version to t itself. Which is brilliant in its way – but misses something really critical in affects. Affects are other folds in one( Deleuze knew this). They are therefore the point that which because ones open to many individuals on is in a sense always lurching into other worlds (again Deleuze notes this). One is then doing this spontaneously. Or better there are not actual acts, there is nothing actually forcing or obliging or registering this move. It is rather were we are, and what we are as we are bound our with others. That is to be a finite individuals which is opened I the affect is simply to stop being an Adam air sinning world at all. Here One is no real hobo wandering as only as can be between the worlds. On is rather  actual in them all in the feeling or at least one I of them all. One feels then as a demigod which encircles possibility as many words But more than this the actions.

Thus far, is reconciled with Deleuze. The  difference is one of emphasis as such as. But the problems really start when one considers action. Deleuze following Bergson insists that the affect is passive. And yet it must in the fact that it includes others within it, and their actions being a screwing of action at the very least. That is it is the involving of the active. But is as  active as the universe uses  it. To live as a n affect is therefore to be taking up an action and skewing or changing it. It is this change that opens one to not being in the two world thank you very much. It is the nature of the actions as it beckons of binds others that gives the affect its actual power. This power is demi-direct. It is possible that individuals cease control of a part of the affect (but it only lonely be a part) or are semi- aware in it, They will therefore act fairly directly and in its name, although their power here is limited. His only happens t those elements that lie common to the mind of all involved. That is it is the fate of the common notion to find and use this power actively.

Other mutalutalites, other affects are not then so directly shared. They rather echo manipulating all responses and actions, and making them other. And yet as the entire edifice is changing and warping each individual within it will claim that the entire represent there own nature and power. The mind therefore will claim that it could have or did or felt after that it has portended the actions of the effects. A good affect is that which we made together which in our differing ways we all feel so responsible for!

Affects therefore are what actively conjoins worlds. That is they allow two worlds to be as the same, leaving the parts intact. This conjoins of elements, elements within then cannot be told apart, and et which remain actively separate, -bound u responding to each other as they assume they are linked, and then what Deluze will call concepts. That is the communicate with infinite speed, a speed looping up different elements of the coagulation and forcing links. Conjoining though lacks the immediate slur or synthetics. It need not the analogy of the infinite speed of a things (for Deleuze immanence) travelling between. For the conjoined pairing all that needs to e is the assumption that they are the same and the responding therefore of the one to the other, Each becomes then unthought without the other (ones mother and a sound of a voice – ones home and mess). Each in responding therefore in reflecting present a picture which one relates to as alone. This as a then beckons others (other messy houses – other mothers, other homes) a beckoning that then start affective balls rolling.

Universes are therefore conjoin, they run together and are apart in thee same basic feeling or idea. We may one day tell then apart. For another angle they are always apart, but to our minds they appear the same. In this or to put it in terms of empiricism, the element which gives them their special reality – their vivacity is pooled at this point. The perception is therefore different and yet as they are real (and not merely imagined we cannot pull out this difference. The two elements therefore will always be held o be the same. Thus is truer for individual and universes.

In the former cause individuals or aspects of things will easily hold their own reality to depend upon for its existence other, they will therefore always bind that existence to the others doing. The tow together therefore create a reality which only operates between the two. , that I is the way he reality of the vivacity and the response to the power of passions is being taken up and used. The two are then conjoined with each other. Their reality is defined in the between of them. I is this between space (which however remains a between, it has no imaginable content – which  Deleuze talks of speed) is then what then has the reality. They (and individual separate things) are looked into this unseen and yet real elements. Likewise in the case of universes objectively different streams of them lie together. They look into the same reality, and prevent its differentiation or bind it back on itself. I choose one cause, regret it, and listen then to something other in a me-  that other world calling/ I therefore set a cause between the world I chose and that other world I reject. I get as near as possible to it. And who knows if I had chosen the other way then would also do the same. Universes become then to point of absolute bifurcation (the point of Adam’s sin was that it is rare) so much as pointers or ends in a process where all the interesting active stuff falls between the worldlings.

Where events set up worlds and make choices real, affects snigger and immediately start to conjoin the relation of absolute difference events have made. they map out new loops between them. They catch them in the same threading realities. The say bugger off to truth and embrace othering reality.

This difference is summarised in Dickens according to three contrast..

Part 2:  the hidden and the mysterious.

The event is necessarily a fragment. It is never complete. It always has a power. As I am bound into it I will therefore always necessarily respond to it as a story which is never quite over. The point of it is then it fraction. It is a tale told in a dining room which remains a mystery. The pointer missing. It apostles, those you spread and flourish in its truth, will necessarily be placed of the edge of something. They cannot ever join as such. They are rather then agents of mystery. That is the elements it power lies in the fact that it is unresolved.

As the resoluble the event as Deluze says eludes what it is. It therefore jangles between universes. Are we there yet people ask as they look upon it. That is have we reached a point where the event is mapped out, where we all know what it is. The answer in essentially no.

This  has though two aspects.

Firstly the event acts mere as a portal between different universes. The event is therefore the moment this universe might suddenly change. the beloved husband here suddenly becomes the hated criminal there. The poor couple becomes the rich landed property owning one. I is therefore a point where something is utterly transformed. As such it is always elsewhere. Always posing a between. To look at it therefore is to look through it, and look into the other plane the other world. It is to see something always beyond through it. How can it exhaust itself therefore? But also why should one leap through such  a gate. The normal respond to the event is to run and hide. Or at least it is by those who do not care for it or know it. One hides because in hiding one stays in the universe one knows. We would one ant another? The event therefore poses an active mystery. It is mysterious an yet in keeping it a s a mystery a thing unresolved we stay comfortable. To attempt to relate to that change I to change the world.

The event is therefore always a sudden step – a point of difference. And yet it is in the nature of this pointer of difference that it does not directly lie within the world. It is fragmentary in the suspension, the  event as such (the Harmon murder) did not happen or did not happen in the way its apostle thought it did. Not in then the event is therefore how others respond to it. It is in this nothing that its power leis. One thinks one knows what happened. But one knows neither the action itself (that is what happened) or the unwinding consequence of than action. All one knows is that something universe shifting occurred.

These two taken together give the events mystery. It is not of one world. Even in the one world it is unresolved (the gate is never quite seen as such0. all that is seen is other worlds pointing through. I shimmers here therefore and becoming there. Unthought here, or very as it always involved other worlds, simple here, it tells hen of their, and tells it in a way that can only be responded to by change and transformation. As one is bound in such an event one cannot ever be here or there. one can never quiet see it as such.

It is a mystery.

But this mystery is not the same as the self hiding mutuality. The mutual element –that is that which is caught up in you and that which makes us chime into each other (and so forms the jarring back drop of affects) is hidden in us as we cannot actually state its nature. It lies in a response across difference, a response which we find ourselves already bound by as we are. It is therefore in a sense what is natural there. And yet of course this nature is never simple. It is not actually present as such. I share too many things for that with you. Too many assumption. The mutuality’s that matter are the active ones. That is they are the ones which develop something new between the pair of us. This secretive element, the growing of a me in a you and a you in a me, is then rather other than events.

It levies across individuals (and form that vantage point ranges across worlds). It is therefore the other within them. As such it does want the event at all. Events as a portal  force it to move between worlds. The hidden by contrast always want to be in al of them. it wants to use memory and imagination to create – and cares not ht this creation is in many worlds (God’s are as creative as imagination and as vision in the mind. It does not therefore ever want o face the event or only does so at its own time. The event would gather it up, and synthesize it into a thing. The poor of hidden would rather hide with a swollen face in its room. It world rather always operation proxy, and away from the kind sight o the event. It does not (yet) want to resolve, as its very power, it ability to create and to act lies in not, even as I act being in necessarily this universe or that.

However much then it might spare with the world of events (and it taking one between worlds, they feel to others and themselves very similar) it runs to hide from evens. It wants not resolution (yet).

Or to put it other ways. The event beliefs the myth that in acting we separate universes(in some way). The hidden mutuality endlessly rejects this separation and reflects back the action into itself undoing or redoing it as the fabric between the worlds.

Part 3: Duty and the packed.

Nor are the denizens of events and affective world the same.

To live in the event, to be its witness is to be an endless victim of others chance. One is therefore called hither and thither as people feel themselves bound up into events. On goes one listens to their tales, and in the listening discovers ht the event thither thought they were in was never ever quite what they thought. One is therefore lost in the oddity of the fact that every event as it embodies itself across worlds lies. It cannot o anything else, The event is the moment the world differs. Former to tell it to you is therefore to have already cross a line of difference. He event is therefore the magic carpet between the world. the little scarp that makes in itself the change. The piece of information or fragment that makes the difference. It poor witnesses are one always summoned into the light of this difference. They are made or bound by it. As such their life is never their own. They are endlessly dragged on wild goose chances. They can never know where they time might lead, or where a new event might open out. More than that people cannot behave normally around such folk? That is they cannot respond to them save in the event which changes anything. The only one must either tell them lies therefore, or elements which takes them and oneself elsewhere or else one must hide or make up a story which would account for ones absence.

The event might be everywhere and across everything and yet the truth of that move is such that those life as its itness are dragged thither and hither and those ho want o avoid such witness need to run and hide.

Affective humanity, with its silent pact between the consciousness and the affect self responds to the world rather differently. It might not know exactly what event it is caught by. That is it does not know if this is a funeral or a wedding. I might not be able even to time the event aright. It must therefore wait the ceremony until the conscious mind is present (so much in the world is other than conscious , is about he blind witnesses who lack there own consciousness as such – or rather our are merely conjoined to it and not of the fully blown variety). It might then loose sight of time and loose sight of what event it is in. and yet as long as the pact between the felt and the though is real this does not really matter. He affect and its partner are necessarily between the world. As such there pact is not bound to  a mortality tying them to his one as such. Their marriage really might also be the opening part or move in the funeral. It might be the before death party – the living wake which makes a life. Or it might be the first point in getting better. The point is either way the pact is right, and either way their union in some deepening sense survives. It cannot really do other I is founded not on specific bodies but a power which runs across bodies and redoubles up the world.

They might marry therefore, as the sun rises over the land, and in facing the danger of death or life they care not. The union is enough to be adequate to the response. It has it own deep power. In this of course it is enough that as long as they are together and pull together the actually of depth as such is circumvented. That is death big or little (as the event) is delayed, as their productive power holds out its hands cross rub icons of change. IT makes or requires then the Rubicon to be only penultimate. There is always the loop running across-  the bridging of the world, visible and open for all to see.

The power of the event of act as a portal is therefore unfixed in the world. I is a powerful mystery between words. The power in contrast of the affect lies in posng that mystery in a realtion for all to see. The loop is held as self evident and that evidence is its power.

One does not change the same in either case. One does not act the same.

Part 3; the conjoins, expression an passion.

Expression is rather simple. It is the event as it conjoins to affects. It is therefore in a sense the productive part of the event as if mirrors in look and sigh the affect. It is therefore the creature of the event, and goes of within him (and is rather like to him with its flirting ways), and yet, and yet it moves the affect and the mutuality’s which are based upon that affect. It looks to and tries then to be adequate for or good enough to mirror the deep exchanges of the affect. I will always want therefore to improve itself and better where it . It might endlessly tumble across worlds, and requires other to do so, and yet it does so in the names of the pacts its singles out, pacts of flirting and companionship, pacts as if they were affective that then seek to fold back and loop across events.

Its marriage and other marriage therefore loop into ach other, its desire, in other desire become friends. People who never meet are forced into loving relations. Or again the event of its occurrence or its presence at the event is enough to register the approval of the missing member, the mutual man. I is enough because the expression expresses in here reaction and her timing the nature of the person.

To live event as affects and in exchanges, that is Bella aim even when she has reformed. A bewitching one as other always are free to join in the party. She therefore remains the flirt – the anathema: She uses little events, little scurries of thought to make pact within. One is therefore bounding her companionship.

The other pole of conjunction it to be of the see of affects and their personalized effects, passions and yet look to evens. This is of course a far from happy lace. One wants to use the power of passions not force events into one way. or rather one uses it in the hope that events are going to fall out one way rather than another. The power then of ones passions becomes critical to what one is. And yet thus p[lower is not allowed to be affective. That is it is not allowed to involve others. It cannot involve them. f it did it would be bound up and forced to change.

It only hope of living in events it to hold itself down. Then at lest it will act in an utterly definitive way. that is it forces the event, the point of change to happen in the cauldron of owning passions.

And yet as those passions mirror events or reflect upon them it cannot of course know what it has done. it has crossed a rubric with no hope of looping back. And yet which Rubicon? What has it forced? What has it don? these are very real questions for it and through it. It acts an yet in acing it knows it cannot formats were the action leads. All is rage to own passion, and so be the person of the event, and bound to action is therefore lost. Or better it is drowned out by the very power of the event is has raided up. This power is to never be of one world. Passion therefore in acting are betrayed. They re cut of from all hope of redemption ,and pitched into an oblivion where all they can look to is the event which never need go their way.

In short passions owning power is therefore rendered threadbare.

To flirt is to be the women of events and yet old those events under the gaze of the affect. One might go anywhere-  but all one wants are real exchanges. To be the man of passion is by contrast to be bound demanding that this is the world and that it has this event within it, it is thereof to ignore the affects that create passions. It is to do so in the name of an event which then never falls out as one wants it to.

Events and affects therefore lies across each other  stalk each other. Minds dance to both tunes, but the game is to keep the two apart or only conjoin them in ways that allow difference between them to function (as Bella knows) and be productive. The Headstone trap of demanding reality (events) follow passions, is always rather too easy to fall into and through…