Juxtaposing the states of passionate arousal and calm equanimity tells us only that they are inconsistent and that they seem as if to belong to two different selves. What is more interesting would be to observe the transition between them in the same self. Something along the following lines. Desires are endlessly propagandised as expressions of the self, their connection is assumed to be unmediated. It is not enough that desires endlessly upwell and mutate slowly if at all, that they only increase in intensity after each temporary lull following gratification, but they must also be managed, or husbanded (wived?) in time and space, both personal and social. This includes the passions which here are taken to be excesses of desire and the immediate corollaries of such excesses, their excessive justifications. Desire, to be fully respected as truth-bearer, cannot be bounded and so excess of desire, desire which breaks with the energetic circuits of the self, is expected and becomes the justification for further management, as much as possible to be treated as exemplary, or heroic. All of this and its ramifications covers most of the culture, but a place remains for challenging the link between desire and the self, or indeed between desire and a self. This is where such notions as a death-drive might be invoked or more simply the alienation from desire. What is it you want? No, What is it that wants this thing in you? It is not madness at stake here but damnation. There is a crucial choice to be made, and it has long been made, but you don't yet know which way you will go. Desire is now experienced not as an aspect of freedom but of necessity, but paradoxically you find there is more freedom, of a perverse kind, in necessity than there ever was in freedom.