Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!hao!gatech!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!pyramid!thirdi!sarge From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Newsgroups: sci.psychology Subject: Re: language, thought, and culture Message-ID: <353@thirdi.UUCP> Date: 19 Mar 88 21:21:43 GMT References: <44@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM> <2100@phred.UUCP> Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology Lines: 92 Keywords: intention drive emotion Summary: Emotions correspond to degrees of fulfillment of intention. In article <2100@phred.UUCP> daveh@phred.UUCP (Dave Hampton) writes: > What is an appropriate classification scheme for emotion? A >simple intensity-of-a-quality scheme is attractive, and would >serve for continua such as love-like-dislike-hate and delighted- >happy-unhappy-miserable. What qualities are needed to span the >range of emotions? Or are there other schemes which work better? > And what about "drives" such as hunger or curiosity? These feelings >certainly have the sensation of an emotion , but seem less abstract >in their expression (Consider lust vs. love, for example). How should >these be handled? I think there is an important distinction between emotions and intentions, or "drives", on the one hand, and physical sensations on the other, though they relate to both. I don't particularly have scriptural authority to quote in support of my views. But I'd like to present an experiential (as opposed to physiological or neurological) account of emotion. First of all, emotion depends on intention. If one did not have any needs or desires (i.e., intentions), one would not feel emotions, I believe. Hence the Buddhistic idea that pain (including emotional pain) derives from attachment or desire (There's my scriptural authority :-). ). If one does not care about something (has no intentions with respect to that thing), one does not particularly feel emotions about that subject. An emotion is correlated with a consideration of how well one is doing at fulfilling a particular intention. And the different emotions contain different "built-in" strategies for coping with the various degrees of perceived failure or success in fulfilling the intentions that correspond to the emotions. Thus, emotion is specific to a particular activity, governed by a particular intention. One can feel enthusiastic about one's job and, at the same time, apathetic about one's marriage and angry at a rude shopkeeper. It is possible to arrange emotions along an increasing scale, arranged in increasing order of perceived probability of success in fulfilling a particular intention. Anyone can work out what this scale would consist of by consulting his own experience, but this is what I get: At of near the bottom of this scale would be the emotion called "apathy", which occurs when one believes there is little or no chance of success, and the strategy of which is to disengage from the corresponding activity. Above that level is grief, where one feels one is probably going to fail, and the strategy is to make enough noise and express enough pain to get someone else to do something about it, since one has given up oneself. At the level of fear, the strategy is to run away. At anger the strategy is to destroy obstacles to the fulfillment of the intention. At antagonism, the strategy is to push back with equal force against opposing forces. Above antagonism is a level of ambivalence, where one is uncertain of impending success or failure and therefore tends to vacillate and be relatively inactive. Then comes complacency, where the strategy is to more or less continue doing what one is doing. Above that, where one is quite confident of success, lie enthusiasm and exhilaration, where one feels one can be more relaxed and experimental in one's approach. At and below antagonism, the "built-in" strategies themselves usually are counter-productive and (all else being equal) lead to a greater degree of failure. So I call those "negative emotions". At and above complacency, the strategies tend to lead to success, all else being equal. I call those "positive emotions". So a person who is content or cheerful in a particular area tends to gravitate towards enthusiasm, whereas a person who is antagonistic or angry tends to gravitate towards apathy. If an emotion be thought of as like a musical note, these different levels are like different "pitches" or "wavelengths". However, the other component of a musical note is volume, and this in determined by the intensity of the *intention* that underlies the emotion. We have intense emotions concerning things that are very important to us and rather light emotions concerning things where our intentions are weaker. As a matter of personal survival, it is best to associate with people who are habitually on the positive end of the emotional spectrum. Those who are lower tend to drag higher individuals down to a lower level of emotion. Those who are higher up tend to pull one up. So in listening to or reading what another person has to say, I have found it extremely helpful to listen to the "music" (the emotional scale) of their communication and take that into account in evaluating what they say. People who are expressing negative emotion are rarely truthful. I go into these matters at more length in my book "Beyond Psychology -- An Introduction to Metapsychology" (self-published; email or write me for details). -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge