"EMOTIONS"---theory

[The_Hamster_King]

*Originally posted by jesse morrison *
**Respectfully, I find it strange that I am the only one
that has given a (true) personal experience of a negative
emotion (Sexual Jealousy) even though it is considered
a universal emotion.

I sincerely think it would be a more productive debate
if we “looked” at the emotion “inside” it’s context,
instead of looking at it abstractly.
**

The problem with this approach is that anecdotal evidence isn’t much use at proving anything.

Let’s look at your orginal proposition:

*Originally posted by jesse morrison * **
Emotions evolved as “fitness indicators” for Darwinian
Sexual Selection. Language evolved and “hides” negative
emotions and “flaunts” the positive emotion of Joy.
**

I assume by “fitness indicators” you mean something akin to the peacock’s tail. The tail confers no survival benefit on the peacock, but it does advertise to peahens that its owner is healthy enough to support such a useless extravagence.

I don’t see how emotions fit this framework. Some emotions (fear, disgust) have an obvious survival value. Others like love and anger may be harder to explain, but they still don’t seem to work the same way the peacock’s tail does. Is a towering rage sexier than a fit of pique? Where is the selection pressure?

Furthermore, while people can hide their emotions, they do it more through mental self-control than through language. (Keeping a “poker face”, for example.) In fact, talking can often make it harder to hide your emotions – think of the edge of anger creeps into your voice when you talk to someone you dislike, or the way a mourner may hold his feelings inside for hours, only to break down when he tries to speak.

[AHunter3]

One thing you can do with an intellect and the ability to conceptualize that you can’t do with emotions alone is experience “meta-emotions” – feelings about how you are feeling.

It is there, I think, that we paradoxically embrace emotions as the key to understanding and at the same time free ourselves (at least in part) from the tyranny of their immediacy.

Jesse:

AHeadhunter3

Hey!?! Was that intentional? :mad: …<giggle>

Re: sexual jealousy – OK, so I’m just plain weird. I do acknowledge that nearly everyone else seems to feel it and take it for granted.

[DocCathode]

Clarification- I meant Fear Factor as an example of logic causing an action contrary to emotion. Voting pro-chocolate, was intended as an example of a rational decision based on emotions.

I fail to see how using personal examples would help this debate. My personal experiences may not be representative of male emotions as a whole. In fact, there's a chance that I have a mutation of some kind and that my emotions are unique. For example, I do not feel the need to "fit in" or conform. I do not alter or tone down my behavior in public, as I just don't care what total strangers think of me. Both of those traits are in the minority. While these attitudes may have adaptive value ("Come on! All the other lemmings are gonna jump off the cliff! Don't you want to fit in?) or may lessen my odds of reproduction ("What's with the formation guys? I am so sick of looking at another goose's butt all day. From now on, I'll fly by myself and migrate my own way."). Either way, personal examples of these emotions don't clarify things. Personal examples might be good fodder for the paper your working on, but they fleshing out the text is all they're good for.

It seems clear to me that jealousy is another survival mechanism. If children feel jealous when a sibling receives attention they compete for that attention. The winner would then receive more attention-more food, more instruction, etc. This would give them an advantage over their siblings. I addressed sexual jealousy in a previous post.

[Kaje]

Just as additional evidence for the statement that formal language is not needed to hide “emotions”… I remember reading about a study in which dogs that had just gotten out of surgery were kept waiting in an area which was being monitored by camera so that the dogs didn’t know anybody was watching… They showed obvious signs of pain and perhaps other negative emotions (the sort of “sadness” you can see in dogs at times)… then as soon as anybody came in, not necessarily even the owner, they would act as if nothign was bothering them… then the person would leave, and they went back to obvious suffering… This would seem a fairly simple survival/reproductive mechanism, not wanting to show enemies/predators a weakness and wanting to show any females that they were indeed healthy and strong. So emotions are often hidden through non-verbal means as well.

DocCathode: oh come on now… don’t tell me you didn’t buy that new [insert trendy band] album so you could blast it from your car as you drove by the local “cool-kid” hangout

[jesse_morrison]

QUOTES by AHunter3

---

“meta-emotions” – feelings about how you are feeling.

---

It is there, I think, that we paradoxically embrace emotions as the key to understanding and at the same time free ourselves (at least in part) from the tyranny of their immediacy.

---

Hi,

How do you separate the “I” from the “feelings”. In what
part of the body do you find the “I”?

Are your “Memes” the “I”? Are memes information?
Are “feelings” information? Is language made up of
memes? Are your memes competing with feelings?
Is information competing with information?
Which information is the winner?

“The Observer Is The Observed”
—J. Krishnamurti

jesse (arthur janov’s primal institute graduate)

[AHunter3]

How do you separate the “I” from the “feelings”. In what part of the body do you find the “I”?

A useful question for the interpretation of ANY feelings, not just the “meta-emotions”.

Well, I’d think that over a period of years you end up carrying around with you a sense of self, the Who that you think you are. And it would include what I guess you could call a “default feelings state”, which gives you a frame of reference for comparison.

[jesse_morrison]

QUOTE by AHunter3

Well, I’d think that over a period of years you end up carrying around with you a sense of self, the Who that you think you are. And it would include what I guess you could call a “default feelings state”, which gives you a frame of reference for comparison.

---

Hi,

What is the difference between the “Thinker” and the
Thought"? Are they not the same?

Perception is the “difference that makes the difference”.
If there is no difference between the thinker and the
thought, then there can be no perception.

Perception of a Perception is needed for the formation
of a “true self image”.

I am assuming you are a male:

Find a male competitor, find an attractive female,
perceive her perceptions of you and your competitor.

She does the comparing, not you, because you can not
compare yourself (you and yourself are the same thing,
therefore there is no perception, because perception
is the difference that makes the difference).

Ask the female what she is comparing (categories) keep
score of who the winner is in each category from her
perceptions. All you have to do is perceive her
vocal perceptions.

Do this several times a day and you will have your
“true self image”, along with your “illusionary self
image”, for the purpose of future mating.

At this point you will need to decide if you should
hide your “true self image” and use your “illusonary
self image” as an act of deception in order to attract
the female you are competing for, however; your
competitor may be doing the same thing.

The problem with deception is, most females are
already aware of these deceptions. In retaliation
to your deceptions, they have the potential to
cause you much pain.

jesse,drc (divorced relationship consultant)

[DocCathode]

Kaje, not only did I not buy a cool album to blast from car, I’ve never owned a car.

[The_Hamster_King]

So many questions!

*Originally posted by jesse morrison ***
How do you separate the “I” from the “feelings”?
**

You can’t. It’s not like consciousness sits separate and apart on top of your feelings and reflexes.

**
In what part of the body do you find the “I”?
**

The brain, obviously.

**
Are your “Memes” the “I”?
**

Probably not. Memes are a potentially useful model for the diffusion and evolution of culture, but don’t seem to be required for consciousness. Plenty of ideas flit through my awareness that are mine alone. (For example “My Hello Kitty coffee cup is full of pens!”) No one told me this and I will probably never pass it on to another soul.

Oh, wait, I just did … .

**
Are memes information?
**

Yes, by defintion.

**
Are “feelings” information?
**

Well, you can treat almost anything as information. Feelings are certainly encoded in the brain as distinct patterns of neurons. They are often expressed externally, so they are a form of communication.

**
Is language made up of memes?
**

No. Some memes are transmitted by language, some by music, some by image. Not every utterence is a meme. “I’ll be there are three o’clock” is not a meme. “To be or not to be” is.

**
Are your memes competing with feelings?
**

It would be more proper to say that your memes are competing with your genes. Feelings evolved to serve particular purposes in hunter/gatherer society. The memeplex we current inhabit is very different from the memeplex that our ancestors evolved to accomodate, so, yes, to some extent our memes and our feelings are at odds.

**
Is information competing with information?
**

Replicating information is competing with replicating information, just as it has for the entire history of life on earth.

**
Which information is the winner?
**

Depends on the battle. Overall I’d say the memes are winning.

[AHunter3]

Questions, possibly intended for me to answer?

What is the difference between the “Thinker” and the Thought"? Are they not the same?

There exists the “thoughts of the thinker”, a subset of which could be termed “sense of self of the thinker”. That sense of self doesn’t sit outside of the thoughts of the thinker, but it is a particular subset.

Perception of a Perception is needed for the formation of a “true self image”.

Well put!

You correctly assume I am male.

Find a male competitor, find an attractive female, perceive her perceptions of you and your competitor.

Plenty of attractive females. No male competitors. I’m not in competition with other males (or with females for that matter). The prototypical attractive female can flirt with and/or bed any of us that she wants. She can bed ALL of us if she wants as far as I’m concerned. Other males may have some kind of problem with that. She may value that kind of attitude on their part positively or negatively, depending on her sanity I suppose. At any rate, because of some dynamics generally involved in these equations, the active component in determining who ends up with whom is mostly the act of making a choice, which is activity on her part. Me, I’m just kinda choosable and have little to do with making the choice happen.

She does the comparing, not you, because you can not compare yourself (you and yourself are the same thing, therefore there is no perception, because perception is the difference that makes the difference).

Our minds being the complex mechanisms that they are, I am gifted with the ability to conceive of my conception of myself, treating “self image” as a noun, and then perform subsequent logical operations on that noun, e.g., looking for correlations between the generalizations that tend to constitute the self image and specific observations and events that might reinforce or contradict them. I can even step back yet another level and make a noun out of THAT process and analyze the effectiveness and degree of honesty and rigor apparent in my ongoing reevaluations of my self-image. I know therapy-junkies who do that much and more all the time, although for me the recursiveness gets to me after awhile, so I’m only moderately introspective in terms of “sense of self”.

Meanwhile, keep in mind that “self” doesn’t exist in a vaccuum, but is instead at all times “self in relationship to _", where "” in its entirety would be “world” (a difficult thing to assess, though). Self in relationship to self is me as I know me. Self in relationship to cute female working four doors down is certainly valid but not in any way more “objectively” real than any other relativistic experience of me.