Instinct, mood, emotion and philosophy . . .

[encode_decode]

A brief note on responsibility . . .

If one were to maintain their own sanity by keeping their emotions in check then surely this would enable one to be more responsible. If one were to maintain a mood that is built upon a responsible set of emotions then it should make it easier to maintain ones level of responsibility.

A small note on instinct - it seems to me that we have justice built into us as instinct - controversial I know but surely you can feel it?

@Robert C. Solomon

If emotions are judgments or actions, we can be held responsible for them.

And we probably should be held responsible for them - this is a complex issue however and I have seen this between a man and a woman whereby the man purposely antagonizes a woman until she breaks and then he says that she is being irrational . . . but what really just happened?

Not only do I think we are responsible for our emotional state and maintaining it - I think it is rational to be responsible - I also think the need for emotional calm is built into each and everyone of us. With this in mind, we are able to think of the negative emotions that drive us to piss people off . . .

. . . and hopefully avoid doing that.

Emotions can be self serving and drive a self serving individual to rationally plan out their self serving interests . . .

Is it really so responsible to be so self serving?

[encode_decode]

From the section: 9 The Politics of Emotion (1998)

From the section entitled: The Purpose(s) of Emotions

@Robert C. Solomon

One of the more exciting theses about emotion to (re)emerge in the twentieth century is the insistence that emotions are purposive. They have what Jean-Paul Sartre called finalité. That is to say, they are not only functional and occasionally advantageous, and they are not just the fortuitous residue of fickle evolution; they are in themselves strategic and political.

Let us begin to work on the forerunner to The Politics of Emotion . . .

@Robert C. Solomon

As strategies, emotions seek their own satisfaction, in anger, through vengeance, in hatred, through vanquishing, in love, through “possessing.” This is not to say that all emotions can be satisfied or have conditions of satisfaction.

As is mentioned in the book Grief, for example, is an emotion with no such conditions, except per impossible, the resurrection of the lost loved one.

The question here is do such emotions as Grief have a purpose? It seems as though the answer to this would be yes. I would suggest as a temporary fill-in for loss. The purpose of such an emotion as grief could be to use up the energy distribution that is associated with such loss. An individual who is grieving or a group of individuals who are grieving for the same reason would need the experience the emotion of Grief to flat-line the emotional state back to normal . . . it would also seem to be apparent that such an emotion might have a dependence that needs to be filled. The sudden loss of something or someone that another person was dependent on for any arbitrary reason would be the condition that needs to be satisfied - that is to say that the dependency would need to be replaced - the dependency could easily be love or something else. Either way it is still debatable whether Grief is an open-ended emotion with no purpose.

Grief could easily have a political agenda . . .

I should be careful what I say here however because as Nietzsche famously noted, we always prefer bad explanations to no explanation at all.

@Robert C. Solomon

Sartre famously tells us that emotions are “magical transformations of the world,” by which he means that emotions are intentional and strategic ways of coping with “difficult” situations. We choose them, and we choose them for a purpose.

As is also pointed out emotions were, for so many years, coupled as a poor cousin to “motivation” in psychology textbooks. No one knew where else to put them.

We are soon to find out however that there is more to the picture, and that emotion is also tied to the expression of meaning, and meaning itself can be tied to an expression of emotion. I further suggest that meaning comes out of logic in the most usual sense so if emotion is an expression of meaning then that emotion is likely an expression of logic. Does this work in reverse? Lets try it: emotion is expressed which means something and the receiver logically deduces what the emotion is about.

Mentioned in the book is the idea that emotions are also tied to action . . . So if emotions are tied to meaning, action and are a poor cousin to motivation, then what else can we say about them? Aside from what we have discovered so far, we could potentially say thousands of times as much. One thing that is clear is that emotions are not just biological - how could they be? Let us not worry about this for now and press on . . . I will leave you with meaning as a driver to emotion; I am saying that you are not born with meaning in the sense that you have it now - it is all around you and emotes you - not biological but learned and stored - see how the phenomenon is useful to help us reduce to some conclusion - still lets be careful. Apply similar thought to action and motivation.

@Robert C. Solomon

However, it is the controlled, unexpressed, hidden emotion that requires special explanation, not the connection between emotions and their expression. When an employee gets angry with her boss, or when a mature, respectful child gets angry with a teacher or a parent, it is not the absence of expression that is notable but the restraint, the distortion of expression, which is almost always evident to those who know what to look for.

And this is the forerunner to The Politics of Emotion . . .

- Purpose -

The emotion is “in the world,” not in the mind, the psyche, or the soul.
[size=85]Robert C. Solomon (1998)[/size]

[encode_decode]

Multi Dimensional Reduction - August - 9 - 2017

Seven Dimensional Cross Spectral Abstract

WARNING - THIS MODEL IS NOT CONFINED

Basic States(∆): flight - calm - fight

Startle might stem from calm and lead to fight or flight - with a tendency to calm bias - resolution

flight would be a self - this could cause anger

calm would be self and other - it is possible that calculated anger could be placed here

fight would be an other - anger of course could be here

► Self(∆) - For Each Emotion(Evo∫Conf - Cross Spectral Integration) - Negative or Positive(Spectral Weights)

► Other(∆) - For Each Emotion(Evo∫Conf - Cross Spectral Integration) - Negative or Positive(Spectral Weights)

Self and Other are containers to the Basics States(∆). Self and Other also lay on the same spectrum.

Weights and Integrations directed at self or other are just the coordination of processes in the mind - they are pattern processes that are “superimposed” on neural networks - each emotion is either an Evo(Evolution) or Conf(Configuration) or Cross Spectral Integration that is weighted in terms that can be thought of as Negative or Positive.

The Negative and Positive is purely figurative and is in fact a second spectrum. I am contemplating the Spectral Weights for their validity - this is a reduction so I am concerned that I have possibly reduced it too much and possibly removed needed complexity.

The complete emotional state is a complex set of subtleties built upon a logical framework. Each emotion shows itself more defined at different times and that is why we find commonality and are able to give them names - but the reality is that no emotion can be named truthfully because each persons pattern processes are different and each qualia is not the same as the next persons each qualia. Colors for instance remain the same in the electromagnetic spectrum but differ in the persons Cross Spectral Integration.

What can I say about this reduction: I can say that is elegant yet abstract - I can say that there are discrepancies in the fight, calm and flight versus self and other. It is yet to be considered the idea of internal/external fear, calm and conflict - that fight is not an other and fear is not a self. I can also say that what this reduction expands into is incredibly complex and that might be difficult to ascertain from the abstract. Finally I can say that it is not clear how negative and positive should be represented; my intuition tells me not as negative and positive but more as something like beneficial and non-beneficial; I was also hoping to leave the binary representation behind but it seems to be inescapable.

NOTES: All emotions that we could name may live within these seven dimensions. There are possibly eight dimensions here instead of seven - I would have to scrutinize it more carefully. One thing this model shows is the filtering out of dimensions to an imaginary singular dimension or quite possibly a binomial dimension when a single emotion becomes apparent. This model is also not bounded because I rushed the thoughts into writing - so it only serves as a basis for further ideas. Hopefully I am counting the dimensions correctly in the first place - egg on my face if not.

[encode_decode]

Controlling our emotional state . . .

I have my doubts that we do not think our way into emotional states. I say this because of my observations of other people. I understand how hormones can affect the emotional state. I am wondering whether there is a method that we can choose to think our way into an emotional state, given my observations of other people and even despite the interaction of hormones within our bodies. I do believe that culture and social interactions would play a big part here. I also wonder whether when we suffer a physiological affect that can change our emotional state, whether it can be identified internally to avoid negative after affects.

I have noticed that emotions are easy enough to over-ride but I need to consider the benefit of such a decision as well as any possible detriment. On the physical side it is not good to overstimulate any neural receptor for too long as damage can result. Given that emotions can affect receptors then there must be an acceptable threshold that one can enter that keeps one functioning optimally and causes no damage to the nervous system. On the mental side there is always the danger of bad internal programming and corrupting internal processes with extreme emotional thinking - there are emotional releases and I have also experienced something similar with logic that I would refer to as a rational release.

I think it is safe to say that our own responsibilities and intentions can guide us through a potentially treacherous path whereby we are able to be betrayed by our emotions. I think back to a time when I hit my thumb with a hammer while attempting to drive a nail into a piece of wood - quickly the pain was overtaken with anger and much profanity. So now I have to contrast my statement: I have my doubts that we do not think our way into emotions; Now I have to say at the very least there are some emotional events that can not be avoided - these emotional events are the events that need the previously mentioned emotional releases.

To what length can these emotional events be avoided? I can imagine the “nicest” person still experiencing anger internally even if they are not showing it externally. Does anger have a seed? I have had the experience where because of another person being around, I did not lose my cool and quickly adrenaline and possibly endorphins were able to extinguish any outburst that may have occurred. Thus the seed became infertile or thrown back into the seed “packet”.

How much control we have over our emotional state will lead to how much we are able to confine ourselves from what we perceive to be bad. Then there is also the problem of free will which I will also mention in rationality. Does free will exist? That would depend on your definition I suppose - I think of free will as you being able to choose whatever you want - I do not think this is possible at all. Do we have any will? I believe so - I think our will is confined to causal situations that apply pressure to our mind and body, and decision making(if performed correctly) can lighten this pressure and extend the amount of freedom we have.

So where does that leave us with emotions? I would say that we have enough mental power to lighten the pressure of our emotions too - that we are able to lessen the confinement of the causal situation we are in, and in turn relatively free ourselves of the bondage of confining emotions(ones that we do not want to be confined by in particular) - while I still believe it is impossible to escape emotional confinement(or an emotional state) entirely - life can still be made more pleasant mentally. This takes discipline however, and the giving over to, the power of rationality.

When I speak of confinements I am speaking of a perimeter of sorts or an end or even a beginning and of course a voluminous entity contain within its on space. And emotion has a beginning and an end so it must be driven and also must drive - id est it is driven by another emotion or thought or stimulus and the result drives another emotion or thought or stimulus - the pattern here should be clear enough to apply to sociological, neurological, political and et cetera relations.

Like perception I am going to have to consider whether emotions are expressions of events that happen in the past. What calculus is being used - stone in the pond - makes ripples. Emotions like logic are going to boil down to information programming information - updates - new strategies - new beliefs - new methods - passions, desires, new emotions, new thoughts . . .

. . . new views of reality . . .

[James_S_Saint]

@encode_decode

@Robert C. Solomon

…

I suspect that no one should speak of “emotion” until they bother to unambiguously define the word (much like “God”).

[encode_decode]

James

@James S Saint

I suspect that no one should speak of “emotion” until they bother to unambiguously define the word (much like “God”).

I could define emotion as follows:

Rational Mismatch Feedback - (Sense Functioning)
A state when “sense functioning” is not within the limits of one’s own rationality. The emotional state is not in a default state of calm(or rational parity).

Then rationality would have to be unambiguously defined too . . . logic has been variable over the course of history.

Rationality would be what ever makes the most sense . . .

[encode_decode]

CPC - Cyclic Parity Check

Mind requires a binomial base state - calm & true
Emotion and Logic are like sophisticated sensory networks acting on mind’s behalf.

Somewhere between the two is a CPC.

When the emotion is calm then the logic is true - when the logic is true then the emotion is calm.

Based on subjective tolerance - a threshold that the subject allows that is built by the subject’s living conditions.

Calm and True are based on conditions accumulated and assembled through experience and - I surmise - are therefore relative to meaning.

[Arcturus_Descending]

@James S Saint

@encode_decode

@Robert C. Solomon

…

I suspect that no one should speak of “emotion” until they bother to unambiguously define the word (much like “God”).

Can the word emotion actually be UNAMBIGUOUSLY defined?
Look what we do with the God word.
Some words can become more defined and refined by taking away what they seem not to be.

But the inner experiences which are affected by both our inner and outer worlds ~~ how do we make that clear considering that we all think and experience things differently, express ourselves differently.

Perhaps I am wrong but do not go and say so James unless you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I am.

[James_S_Saint]

@Arcturus Descending

Can the word emotion actually be UNAMBIGUOUSLY defined?

Yes.

@Arcturus Descending

Look what we do with the God word.

Then perhaps we should not allow “we” to do it.

@Arcturus Descending

Some words can become more defined and refined by taking away what they seem not to be.

Certainly. A good definition will inherently exclude whatever is not meant by the word (aka “UNambiguous”).

@Arcturus Descending

But the inner experiences which are affected by both our inner and outer worlds ~~ how do we make that clear considering that we all think and experience things differently, express ourselves differently.

Just because we each taste food a little differently doesn’t mean that we can’t define what “tasting food” means.

@Arcturus Descending

Perhaps I am wrong but do not go and say so James unless you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I am.

So.

Personally, I define “emotion” as any consciously sensed urging or emoting from within. Urgings that are not consciously sensed, even if identical otherwise, are not called “emotion”, but rather words like; “reaction”, “response”, “instinct”, and so on. “Over-emotional” refers to the presents of so much urging or emoting that rational discipline is lost.“Too little emotion” refers to the lack of sufficiently reasonable emoting with words such as; “heartless”, “callous”, “dispassionate”, “cold hearted”, “apathetic”, “lazy”, “laissez faire”, “cavalier”, and so on.

[encode_decode]

I like the way you have categorized the following . . .

@James S Saint

Personally, I define “emotion” as any consciously sensed urging or emoting from within. Urgings that are not consciously sensed, even if identical otherwise, are not called “emotion”, but rather words like; “reaction”, “response”, “instinct”, and so on. “Over-emotional” refers to the presence of so much urging or emoting that rational discipline is lost. “Too little emotion” refers to the lack of sufficiently reasonable emoting with words such as; “heartless”, “callous”, “dispassionate”, “cold hearted”, “apathetic”, “lazy”, “laissez faire”, “cavalier”, and so on.

. . . I view what you have written here as a categorization of three domains, instinct, emotion and that which I currently refer to loosely as Rational Mismatch. I am interested in the different ways people combine things. I do however think that we can split response in two by saying that a response can be driven automatically in both of the following cases:

1. Fight and Flight.
2. Something more premeditated.

In the case of 2, like a previously imagined response becoming manifest in reality as if it were instinctively swift.

I too have a categorical master set that I seek to change . . .
. . . the changes will be based on the available evidence that I have at my disposal.

[encode_decode]

Arcturus Descending

OK, my turn - and I am going to play a little dirty so get ready.

@Arcturus Descending

Can the word emotion actually be UNAMBIGUOUSLY defined?
Look what we do with the God word.
Some words can become more defined and refined by taking away what they seem not to be.

Hmm . . . the word emotion can actually be UNAMBIGUOUSLY defined - it also depends on how many emotions you wish to define as to how less ambiguous you want your definition to be - still it is possible to give a single definition that is unambiguous.

@Arcturus Descending

But the inner experiences which are affected by both our inner and outer worlds ~~ how do we make that clear considering that we all think and experience things differently, express ourselves differently.

Emotions are poorly defined as it stands now but there are emotional events that are the same from one person to the next - what do you think of that?

Keep in mind the word event . . .

[WilliamL]

Emotion refers to the conscious and subjective experience that is characterized by mental states, biological reactions and psychological or physiologic expressions.They are genetically written.Emotion is distinguished from “mood” based on the period of time that they are present; a mood lasts longer than an emotion.Instinct is the inherent inclination of a living organism towards a particular complex behavior.Animals and humans learn a lot of things from other animals and humans. But if there isn’t any learning involved, then the behavior is an instinct.Philosophy (from the Greek phílosophía meaning ‘the love of wisdom’) is the study of knowledge, or “thinking about thinking”.

[encode_decode]

@WilliamL

Emotion refers to the conscious and subjective experience that is characterized by mental states, biological reactions and psychological or physiologic expressions.They are genetically written.Emotion is distinguished from “mood” based on the period of time that they are present; a mood lasts longer than an emotion.Instinct is the inherent inclination of a living organism towards a particular complex behavior.Animals and humans learn a lot of things from other animals and humans. But if there isn’t any learning involved, then the behavior is an instinct.Philosophy (from the Greek phílosophía meaning ‘the love of wisdom’) is the study of knowledge, or “thinking about thinking”.

How can we be sure of this? What scientific evidence points so clearly as to illuminate an emotion proper? Emotions are very complex and where they actually exist may as well make them non-existent and yet we experience them. We experience emotion in the mind! As for mood, I do find some affinity to what you are saying.

How far down the rabbit hole would we truly have to go before we could grasp what an instinct actually is?

Some instincts have been labelled as such without enough evidence that they are such.

Thank you for the refresher on what philosophy is.