Whenever we enter into resonance with a person, a book, a piece of music, a landscape, an idea, a piece of wood, we transform ourselves in and through the encounter, albeit to a quite varying degree: there are encounters of which we say that they have "made us into a different person", and there are transformations that bring about a barely noticeable and perhaps only temporary change, for instance in our mood.
In any case, however, the change in the relationship to the world is a constitutive element of the resonance experience: whenever we enter into resonance with the world, we do not remain the same. Resonance experiences transform us, and therein lies the very experience of aliveness. If we no longer allow ourselves to be called and transformed by anything, or if we are no longer able to respond self–effectively to the numerous voices out there, we are inwardly dead, petrified, in short: incapable of resonance.
The hallmark of depression as the state in which all axes of resonance have become mute and deaf to us is that nothing touches us any more and at the same time we have the feeling that we can no longer reach anyone, that we are "frozen" and thus incapable of transformation. Everything out there is dead and empty, and everything in me is also mute and cold, we then say, and no increase in the reach of the world is able to free us from this state.
From this perspective, aliveness is based precisely on *Anverwandlung* in the sense of a double–sided transformation: even if one does not want to engage with authors like Bruno Latour or Philippe Descola in the argument that it is a thoroughly questionable and one–sided specificity of the rationalist–scientist modern worldview (and its corresponding mode of Aggression) to consider everything in the universe to be mute and "dead" and to attribute resonance capacity only to human beings, it is obvious that objects (for us) also change significantly through the resonance experience. The mountain I climbed is (for me) different from the one I only saw from afar or knew from television, and likewise the book, the music, the language, the idea change in the process of transmutation. But as "things in themselves" they are not accessible to us anyway.
Resonance relations are, thirdly, thus characterised by the fact that the subject and the encountering world change with and in them. This is precisely what cannot be said about the mere appropriation of a thing: I can buy a book and even read it without it touching, moving or changing me in any sense, and with the same result I can pray, attend concerts, climb mountains or get married.
Without the triad of af<-fication (in the sense of being touched by an Other), E->motion (as a self-effective response through which a connection is made) and affirming transformation, appropriation remains a relation of relationality. The necessity of the interplay of the three moments of touch, self-efficacy and transformation makes it clear that on the one hand we have to be open enough – like a violin or a guitar – to be touched and changed, but on the other hand closed enough to respond in our own voice and self-efficaciously.
For example, someone who has been traumatised by experiences of violence and has therefore experienced touch as a violation may henceforth resist and block any touch; conversely, **someone who is affected by everything and everyone will lose the ability to hear and develop his or her own voice.**
Those who do not trust themselves with affirmative efficacy, who have not had the experience or have forgotten that they are able to touch intrinsically and to trigger an accommodating response, will limit themselves to encountering the world of people and things in an aggressive-manipulative way.
The fluidity of object and reference in networks can be expressed as a transformation rule that is unique to this (and similar) dialects, Structure Sharing.
[…] Void transformation, for example, could be shown as elements fading into the background, or burning up, or growing legs and walking away.
[…] Some animation techniques such as fading away to represent void-equivalence are strongly connected to the transformational intentions of the calculus itself, while some are fanciful add-ons that may entertain while distracting from the mathematical formalism. Here is where rigor and psychology intersect. (p. 330)
Bricken, Iconic Arithmetic Volume I, p. 329–330.
Once you get comfortable with the idea that structural transformation is independent of interpretation, your eyes and fingers can take over for your brain.