my tiny epiphany . . .

It's probably all been covered, but there isn't time enough and will to read everything I need to read. But lately, I've been blissing out on Brian Massumi's "The Autonomy of Affect" . . .

So Massumi’s autonomy of affect, the missing ½ second . . . the plane of immanence, the cuttlefish’s shape shifting . . . beyond cognition (?) . . . this is the space where you need no language to explain your art . . . is this intuition? aesthetics? (vibratory pleasure/power). Things . . . sensations . . . register in the brain but outside of consciousness . . . or prior to consciousness . . . so this feels like intuition . . . it feels like the guess you have at meaning or maybe it’s just being in pleasure or affect (however it is shaped w/r/t a particular work of art). So, language, then, linearizes the sensation, lines it up causally w/in a comprehensible and expressible chain of events . . . this language is, for Massumi, “subtractive.”

This is exploding my head . . . in the very best possible way . . . this feels like something i’ve been thinking about for a while now . . . the subject of my second of 2 (someday) books on film . . . so but this feels, this “subtractive language,” like the “metadiscursive step back” that i’ve been theorizing. I’ve been thinking that when you make films or other multimodal texts, your writing about it is always retrogressive, diminished, small, and, in many ways, easy, (or easier than writing alone, A Writing Project) . . . because nanoscopically (i'm making that up) prior (?) to or transcendent of the moment of articulation . . . we find our registers of meaning (the space desiring expression) “overfull” w/ meaning and complexity (as is the entire process of generating a film). I like it.