Vicki, thanks for your comments. I didn't imagine that the experts and non-experts of this forum would change their opinions or practices due to a little intense affect. I agree that an enlivened discussion is preferable to a pedantic case seminar. However, I'm not sure that some of Don's comments to Henry's post fostered dialogue. Stating that another's theory is a throwback to a bygone era is not (I believe) in the spirit of dialogue. But I guess we each have our own preference for musical styles.
In regard to your thoughts on meaning making and the affect system:
It seems that the affect system is part of our evolutionary heritiage. Affects render basic information about the environment. Affects occur all the time and are coded as scenes. Most scenes are not very important (generate low affect) and some are very important and generate high affect. What generates high or low affect is the meaning we ascribe to a scene. Scenes that we experience frequently and have a certain level of affect will develop into scripts. Scripts are a means to manage affective experience. If I have understood the basic affect system model it has concepts not that different from the Adlerian and cognitive approaches. All three systems use concepts (script, fiction and schema) as organizing processes to explain how individual's uniquely respond to their worlds. Each give emphasis to a different aspect of this process. Basically, the affect model focuses the organization and expression of the affects (as described by Tompkins), cognitive theory focuses on the schema as a means organizing experiences (affectively, cognitively, sensorily and behaviorally) and Adlerian theory uses the the concept of fiction to explain how we give meaning and direction to our affective experiences. I realize that this is an oversimplification and don't mean to imply that one system is better conceptually to others. At that this point I simply want to see what these models (and others)have in common.
Vicki, do I have the basics of the affect system correct? do you see areas of commonality?