[JHuber]

This emotion theory is unique in that every item is connected.
It is a system, not a rhetorical list. Since anything can be
a subject, this is the highest of all possible systems.
I endeavor to get it perfect. I welcome any feedback.

Subject - a cross-utilized unit of a relation
Relation - more than one subject combined together
Extrinsic Subject - subject given to a relation
Intrinsic Subject - subject contained in a relation
Right - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject
Wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject
Possession - if an intrinsic subject is within a subject
Good - what increases a relation
Bad - what hinders or decreases a relation
Serious - being within an extrinsic subject, also known as relevant
Silly - happiness that is not within an extrinsic subject
Crazy - if an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Confusion - if the choice of an extrinsic subject is ambiguous

Happiness - occurs if subjects combine and form a relation. There are
five different types of happiness. In order to include non-social
relations in these definitions, the generic term combination is used
symbolized with the letter 'C'.
1stC - occurs when a relation is formed. Here the extrinsic subject is
created.
2ndC - occurs when subjects are combined to an existing relation. Here
the extrinsic subject already exists.
3rdC - occurs as the back and forth dynamics between relations. Here
more than one extrinsic subject is involved.
Leverage - resembles a lever, the relative lowering of a subject in a
relation causes the relative increase of the other related subjects.
This also is known as apathetic happiness. Subjects on opposite sides
of the lever are apathetic to each other. An examples of this is
kidding.
Contentment - is a relative position a subject has in a relationship.
This position is what we mean when we say we are "happy". Here the
word "content" can be used interchangibly. Other terms that also
apply here are "feelings" and "fashion".
^Enjoyment - having what you want (having what gives you contentment)
^Grief - not having what you want
Frustration - not getting what you want
Anger - excessive Frustration
^Distress - having what you don't want
^Relief - not having what you don't want
Unhappiness is, of course, the converse but with separation instead of
combination. Hate is excessive apathy.

Nervousness - anticipation of a combination
Worry - anticipation of a separation
Shyness - excessive Nervousness
Fear - excessive Worry
Anxiety - general term for Nervousness, Worry, Shyness or Fear
Pride - above Contentment
Shame - below Contentment
Dignity - empathetic Pride
Arrogance, Conceit - excessive Dignity
Honor - the action toward Dignity
Jealousy - apathetic Pride
Envy - the action toward Jealousy
Modesty - empathetic Shame
Humility - the action toward Modesty
Pity - apathetic Shame
Pathetic, Pitiful, Contempt - excessive Pity
Disgust - the action toward Pity
Expectation - future Contentment
Hope - the action toward Expectation (to want a future Contentment)
Standard - past Contentment
Surprise - empathetically or apathetically above Standard or
Expectation
Embarrassment - empathetically below Standard or Expectation
Disappointment - apathetically below Standard or Expectation
Elation - excessive Surprise
Sadness - excessive Disappointment or Embarrassment


^The definitions for Enjoyment, Grief, Distress and Relief are from
I. Roseman 1984. Cognitive determinants of emotion: a structured
theory. In P. Shaver (ed.),
Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 5: Emotions,
relationships, and health). Beverly-Hills: Sage, 11-36.



The name of this system is Subjations which is a blend of words
subjects and relations. What is especially interesting is that even
though it is a model of the mind, it also conforms with evolution.
Every living thing has relatives. One more thing I'd like to add is
something I call the Base Rule. The Base Rule states that, "Related
subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do
not separate." This is a significant factor with morality. There are
only two things that are permanent in the universe, one is the periodic
table and the other is emotion theory.
- John Huber

[mkirkpatrick]

Welcome to toequest J Huber,I send you greetings from England,your first post is very
detailed and interesting,I shall read it carefully then prehaps comment later.

best wishes michael.

[Guille]

John Huber, it seems you haven't realised yet that the world is not a dictionary, in which you give your definitions of concepts in terms of their relationships to other concepts. We need to do that in order to construct a language of thought, out of which to obtain knowledge by the scientific method, in order to predict. Understanding is something very different from this definition of knowledge.

[JHuber]

Originally Posted by Guille John Huber, it seems you haven't realised yet that the world is not a dictionary, in which you give your definitions of concepts in terms of their relationships to other concepts. We need to do that in order to construct a language of thought, out of which to obtain knowledge by the scientific method, in order to predict. Understanding is something very different from this definition of knowledge.

I believe you desire information theory. That is for a different thread.
I'm trying to discuss emotion theory. Am I in the wrong forum?
Is this subject irrelevant here?

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by JHuber I believe you desire information theory. That is for a different thread. I'm trying to discuss emotion theory. Am I in the wrong forum? Is this subject irrelevant here?

No it is not irrelevant here JHuber if it relates to the understanding of the theory of
everything!


regards michael.

[JHuber]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick No it is not irrelevant here JHuber if it relates to the understanding of the theory of everything!

Thanks Michael and Hello Guille,
Many people believe physics will lead us to the understanding of the theory of everything. This is not so, much of the universe is non-physical.
Others believe it is the cumulation of information that will give us such enlightenment. This is not so either, information is perpetually incomplete.

- John

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by JHuber Thanks Michael and Hello Guille, Many people believe physics will lead us to the understanding of the theory of everything. This is not so, much of the universe is non-physical. Others believe it is the cumulation of information that will give us such enlightenment. This is not so either, information is perpetually incomplete. - John

Jhuber there seems to be some ofyour post missingnwhat I recieved by email was a
longer text than this,anyway you said about how far the emotions went down the line,
I recall an experiment made around 25 years ago,where a plant was wired up to a
polygraph-lie-dectector,then a person with sissors in their hand looked at the plant
and thought about cutting it up,with this the reading on the polygraph went "haywire"
and it was deduced that the plant was experiencing "fear" which of course is emotion?


regards michael.

[Guille]

JHuber,

You are not in the wrong forum. I'm not a scientist and I don't reduce the reality of the world to that which is physical. But there is a difference between that, and admitting everything is true. I give different realities to objects of different levels of existence (which have a corresponding level of though and level of talk). Still, the message of my other post hasn't been debated by you. I'm right, the world is not a dictionary, and the love I feel for the girl I'm love with isn't correctly defined as 'the opposite of the hate I feel for Hitler'. For every feeling is unique and isolated from others, there is no repetition, if it is a feeling, it is a new mindfull experience, not a 'third time I fell in love', that is not possible. No comparison is possible between thoughts or feelings. That is why we have art and philosophy, the first is to share feelings and the second is to share thought.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by JHuber Thanks Michael and Hello Guille, Many people believe physics will lead us to the understanding of the theory of everything. This is not so, much of the universe is non-physical. Others believe it is the cumulation of information that will give us such enlightenment. This is not so either, information is perpetually incomplete. - John

I agree with you on both of the above statements,our understanding of reality
and the workings of the universe will always be incomplete.

regards michael.

[JHuber]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Jhuber there seems to be some ofyour post missingnwhat I recieved by email was a longer text than this,anyway you said about how far the emotions went down the line, I recall an experiment made around 25 years ago,where a plant was wired up to a polygraph-lie-dectector,then a person with sissors in their hand looked at the plant and thought about cutting it up,with this the reading on the polygraph went "haywire" and it was deduced that the plant was experiencing "fear" which of course is emotion?

I had edited that part of my post out because I wanted to think about it further. In it I questioned the range that emotion theory has. I'm trying to defend it as a theory of everything. If animals have them then they are not exclusive to humans. Therefore they are natural. I haven't heard about the plant experiment and am skeptical about it since plants can't sense by sight. However, they are subjects and they do relate with each other so in this way they do conform with emotion theory. (Birds, bees, flowers and trees) So, where do you draw the line with the range of emotion theory? Does it apply to non-living matter? You might not understand this but I'll post a correlation here and you can think about it.

1stC) Bonding
2ndC) Transmutation
3rdC) Thermal Energy
Leverage) Radioactivity and Light
Contentment) Inertia

Also, gravity is analagous to extrinsic combination and charge is analagous to intrinsic combination.

This is how the universe makes sense to me.

- John