Pathological Science #4 Emotions
(PD) Charles Allston Collins - Lost Love.
Photo enhancements by Larry Neal Gowdy
Copyright ©2017-2021 - updated February 12, 2021
A very simple question: how many human emotions are there, and what are the emotions' names?
It is important that you verify to yourself that you know what the emotions are, so before reading further, please write your list of emotions.
Pathological Science #1 touched on a few examples of how some scientists have invented some rather ridiculous theories, Pathological Science #2 Binary touched on the false science of a binary universe, and Pathological Science #3 Experts gave examples of frauds who claimed of themselves to be 'expert' scientists. This article briefly focuses on the topic of emotions and why the common theories of emotions illustrate pathological science.
The following links are shortcuts to the different topics within this article.
Dumb Joke Warning
[Note: the following philosophical jabbering of 'it is for itself' is an edited Hegelian quote from Pathological Science #3 Experts.]
A philosopher, a scientist, a theologian, and an eastern mystic walked into an automotive repair shop. Gathering near the left-rear of one of the vehicles being repaired, the philosopher held the front of his white philosopher's robe with his left hand as he raised his right index finger to point towards the ceiling as he spoke authoritatively: "The problem is clearly an irreducibility of applied epistemology! We must have a dialog of how virtue epistemology and meta-epistemology are ontological metaphysical sensations of normative epistemology! The problem is the being or Initselfbeing, the self contained and determined, the Otherbeing or For self 'being and in that determination or its Outerbeing in itself remaining or it is in and for itself this Inandforitselfbeing is only at first for us or in itself, it is the spiritual substance, it must also be for itself, must be the knowledge of the spiritual and must be the knowledge of itself as spirit, it must be its own object, but as much immediate or sublimated, in itself reflected object, it is for itself but for us, in so far as its spiritual content is manifested through itself, in so far however as it is for itself, it is for self, so it is self-manifested, the pure concept, at the same time its own objective element wherein it has its being, and it is in this way in its own being for itself in self-reflected object!"
The scientist had his hands stuffed heavily inside the pockets of his knee-length white lab coat as he shook his head: "No! The problem cannot be known without applying the scientific method! We must first form a reductionist hypothesis and lobby for government funding to pay for expert scientists to perform expert experiments before we can then present the expert data to government-funded institutions for peer review. We cannot know what the problem is until we get a government handout and have a group-consensus that agrees that the problem is an evolutionary genetic mutation caused by the quantum fluxuations within the survival of the fittest!"
The theologian's gaudy gold necklaces and many adornments rustled upon his black robe as he lifted his arms above his head and replied with a loud voice of fake emotions: "Halleluiah! The problem is obvious! God dunnit! Through the dispensationalist grace of predestinationalist giving of tithing God makes all things known!"
Giggling and humming to himself, the red-robed mystic clasped his palms in front of his face: "Karma! It is the yin-yang of the twelve dimensions of inner space of the incarnated soul's emanation within harmony of the eighty-eight chakras of eternal bliss within the paradise of Krishna's love and wonder beyond the river of the soul's original source!"
A barefooted red-headed three-year-old hillbilly boy in overalls walked in and pointed at the problem as he spoke with a heavy southern accent: "It ain't got no air misters! Thuh tire ain't got no air!"
Dumb joke? Sometimes dumb jokes can be amongst the funniest because they are so real-life dumb, like the humor of philosophers, scientists, theologians, and mystics discussing the topic of emotions. Lewis Terman had an entertaining comment about jokes and the people who do not catch the fine points:
The stupid person, whether depicted in literature, proverb, or the ephemeral joke column, is always (and justly, it would seem) characterized by a huge tolerance for absurd contradictions and by a blunt sensitivity for the fine points of a joke. Intellectual discrimination and judgment are inferior. The ideas do not cross-light each other, but remain relatively isolated. Hence, the most absurd contradictions are swallowed, so to speak, without arousing the protest of the critical faculty. (The Measurement of Intelligence — An Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the Use of the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale, Lewis M. Terman - Professor of Education (government-funded) Stanford Junior University, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1916)
Religions have been around since the beginning of written history, and western philosophy has wagged its tongue for about three thousand years, while science has been inventing 'new and improved' stuff for hundreds of years, but in all that time, not once, not so much as once have any of the groups produced a rational and plausible explanation of what an emotion is. Not once. (Waiting for the little red-haired boy to enter...)
Emotions, consciousness, beauty, love, compassion, memories, thoughts, dreams, hunger, sensory perceptions, habits, and all of the other things that are so common for humans — and necessities of life itself — are unknowns to philosophy, science, and theology. Absurdities usually always have a humorous side, and perhaps the greater humor within pathological science's absurdities is the theorists' lack of 'critical faculty' to cross-light the obvious.
Irreducibility and Reductionism
Western philosophy has debated variations of the topic of reductionism for thousands of years, and after countless billions of words (mostly nouns it might seem), western philosophy still does not know if reductionism is correct or incorrect. The debates are still raging and will likely continue for as long as there are humans who cannot think thoughts beyond two dimensions.
The word irreducibility implies a self-evident concept that cannot or needs not be analyzed further. The word reductionism implies the common two-dimensional assumption that a top-level thing (such as the human body) is created by other low-level things (such as organs, cells, and atoms), and the idea is carried into the pathological science assumption that everything can be two-dimensionally dissected to find the low-level things that created the top-level thing (as what Wheeler attempted in Pathological Science #2 Binary).
Since science is supposed to know everything about physics, atoms, organic cells, quantum fluxuations, and everything else, then there should be no question of whether a thing is reducible or irreducible. However, science does not know, and at present it appears that science can never know because science relies on binary mathematics, and that which mathematics cannot measure, cannot be accepted as scientific.
Though the topic of reducibility is important, it is not easy to talk about because  there are four core variables,  the variables are not connected to the other,  man rarely recognizes more than two of the variables,  the English language does not possess verbs that describe actions beyond two dimensions (which prevents verb-based descriptions), and  most people are simply unable to think outside of the math and science that is taught in schools. I will lightly touch on the topic of reducibility while attempting to phrase it within brief concepts, analogies, and metaphors.
 People are not identical, not the same, and not equal, nor can their emotions be the same. As mentioned in Pathological Science #2 Binary, there is no such thing as two identical things anywhere in the universe. Philosophy and science have permanently discredited themselves by having invented lists of emotions that all humans are supposed to experience identically the same. The lists exist, the lists prove that philosophy and science know nothing meaningful about emotions, and the lists are an example of pathological science.
 Just because one man cannot reduce a thought, it does not necessitate that all people cannot reduce thoughts. Just because men like Aristotle speak of their emotions as being singularities, it does not necessitate that all emotions are singularities. No known science or philosophy has shown evidence of having reduced a thought, a concept, or an emotion, and there is no rational reason to assume that philosophy's and science's claims of emotions can ever be true.
 The concept of a wall is a man-made concept that only exists within one's own mind. The wall's components may be real and exist outside of man's mind, but the word wall and the mental concepts of walls are man-made and are not real within Reality. A bug may have no concept of walls, birds might think of the thing as being a rock or a leafless tree, some organisms might only perceive it as food, and each living creature will have a different interpretation of the thing that humans call walls. Walls are real in some ways but not real in other ways. Humans too easily trick themselves into believing in 'things that aren't so', and the absence of knowing which is which can lead an individual into assuming incorrect interpretations of what is reducible and what is irreducible.
 As mentioned in Pathological Science #2 Binary, "...man's mathematics can only measure two-dimensional features of closed systems; mathematics cannot measure open systems. Reality is an open system, which mathematics cannot measure". A wall is a closed system. A wall can be created by nailing wooden studs together, and then nailing sheetrock over the studs. The general binary sequence is 'studs then sheetrock'. Mathematically, scientifically, and philosophically, the wall is reducible by reversing the binary sequence 'sheetrock then studs'. (Whether the binary mental patterning is inherent in some people, or is learned through schools, it is a false sequencing and it always leads to false conclusions when related to Reality.)
Within the above example, the reducing of the wall mathematically, scientifically, and philosophically was not reducing, but rather it was an act of continuing the preexisting sequence of when the wall was first 'created': the alleged act of reducing did not sequentially go backwards in time, but rather the act of reducing remained and continued within the same sequence of time-flow: past to present to build the wall, and past to present to dissect the wall (1 o'clock - nail studs together, 2 o'clock - nail sheetrock to studs, 3 o'clock - remove sheetrock, 4 o'clock - observe the studs, 5 o'clock - claim that reductionism occurred.)
The act of 'reducing' the wall was merely a man-made concept — a thing that a man invented within his mind — and the concept is not real relative to Reality. All mathematical, scientific, and philosophical acts of 'reducing' are false assumptions formed within absences of spatial vertical durations relative to linear markers (please see Studies of Cognitive and Emotional Decay Leading to Dementia for definitions).
As also stated in Pathological Science #2 Binary, "Nature does not function within the same sequences as man's mathematics." Most individuals sincerely do believe that 'reducibility' must infer binary sequences of left to right, up to down, forwards to backwards, and past to future. Just because most humans might form similar false assumptions, it does not mean that the false assumptions are true. The false assumptions of mathematics may appear to be very valid relative to binary past-to-future math, but man's man-made mathematics fails when related to Reality.
 Having skipped-over numerous other variables, the meat of the problem is that though all things are composed of other things (most of which are unknowns to science), Creation's method of creating things is not what most people assume, including those within science, philosophy, religions, and mathematics: there is no sequence of 'single, duality, triplicity, and quad' (as referenced in Pathological Science #2 Binary).
"...humans instinctively want to dissect the [musical] notes, but Reality is not dissectible, it manifests itself in the existence of being combined. If divided, Reality ceases to exist." (Reality, Larry Gowdy, Woven Strings Publishing, Copyright© 2013, first edition published in 2003.)
Emotions — or at least the known emotions of individuals' who can self-observe — are composed of components that must exist for 'new' emotions to be created. However, the 'new' emotions cannot be dissected to find the components. Man's science and math cannot reverse a binary past-to-future sequence, and thus, any attempt to do so will destroy the existing emotion and its components. It might be a self-invented assumption that an emotion is reducible because other components existed in a previous time, but the assumption is a false reasoning: when fields harmonize to create a new field (emotion), the harmony was within a very specific transductance that required very specific patterns of simultaneous 'harmonics'. The harmonics occurred within a specific segment of life-duration, and the harmonics cannot be observed without the same directional flow of time and purpose as when the harmonics occurred.
A simple analogy is of three light bulbs of different colors. The light bulbs are moving towards each other from different distances and angularities, each bulb is in motion because of different reasons (the reasons and speeds of motion are as hues and audible tones), and as the bulbs approach closer, the combined light's color and tone changes. The combined color expresses [a] the bulbs' colors, [b] the bulbs' direction of movement, [c] the bulbs' angles of approach, [d] the bulbs' proximity to the other, [e] the bulbs' histories, [f] the reasons of why the bulbs were moving, and [g] the present creation's purpose.
Reversing the bulbs' direction with the aim of reductionism will result in two immediate problems:  the purpose of reductionism is not the same purpose as the bulbs' original movement, which will cause a different hue and audible tone of the colors, and  the two-dimensional measurement will appear correct to a two-dimensional mathematics within a closed system, but the 'things' found will not be the original 'things' that previously existed, and the measurement will be false relative to what is real in an open system.
Reductionism within a conceptualized closed system might be useful for building walls and fixing flat tires, but in Reality's open system, reductionism is a pathological science. Creation cannot create within a closed system. There must be an open system before a closed system can be formed. There are no boundaries in open systems.
Negativity is negative because negativity destroys: negativity has no harmony with other things, and is therefore not creative. Dissecting a positive emotion is a negative act, and the negative act destroys the positive emotion (the harmony within positivity no longer exists). Reductionism destroys what creativity created.
Science cannot measure an emotion because if science could, then science would have already measured emotions. The vacuity of biological measurements is blunt evidence that science has not and cannot measure physics within living organic tissue. The science of biology has failed miserably and earned itself a contempt by not cross-lighting the most blaringly obvious things that even a healthy three-year-old child can easily recognize. The severe pathological science within the science of biology appears to suggest that there is no such thing as an expert biologist, and the fallacies of biology have almost discredited all of science itself. Four simple 'red-headed' words, and all of present biology would be seen as pathological science, including the holy grail of evolution. (I could tease and say that I will not speak of the four words because I am not a clique member nor do I receive government funding, but I mainly remain quiet because the 'experts' do not deserve to be told, and too, it is lightly entertaining to watch how the 'experts´' minds invent bizarre conclusions.)
[5a] From the firsthand point of view, an emotion can be observed to nascent during a time when specific preexisting emotions are present. From the firsthand point of view, the new emotion is unique — as if the chord of many musical notes creating a unique note — and yet the new emotion required the presence of preexisting individual 'notes' (nothing in all of known Creation has ever come into existence by itself). From the firsthand point of view, the new emotion is a specific physiological state that had not previously occurred. From within the memories of having observed one's own state of existence prior to and during the nascent of the new emotion, and of how the new emotion continues to exist, the mind can then — if desired — recall the memories and analyze the 'sequence' of how the new emotion came into being.
From the firsthand point of view, the new emotion's nature is recognizable if the individual were self-aware before, during, and after the new emotion formed. However, it is apparently extremely rare for humans to be self-aware — Hobbyists, Sciencians, Philosophians, and Pulpiteers claim that their emotions are created unconsciously and cannot be observed by their 'conscious' minds — which concludes that it is not possible for Hobbyists, Sciencians, Philosophians, and Pulpiteers to know how emotions are formed, nor to know what an emotion might be, which concludes that one-hundred percent of all of the individuals' scientific and philosophical theories of emotions are 'pathological science'.
[5a i] Little is as important as the topic of emotions, and little else so clearly describes the nature of western philosophy and science. For over thirty years I have given a curious attention to how emotions are described within the many different ideologies, and the one thing that has been the most odd to me is that almost all of man's written history has spoken of the same few emotions over and over. To me, man's descriptions of emotions did not make sense. The descriptions were irrational, vague, only of nouns, with no verbs, and with no hints of self-observation. My question to myself was to ask why almost everyone described emotions the same way, and why no one gave evidence of knowing what an emotion is. Surely, it seemed, that I was simply not understanding what the many thousands of writers had written, because, to me, one or two irrational authors is expected, but surely not all of the authors could be similarly irrational. It made no sense to me.
It was not until I developed the Sensory Quotient (SQ) project and began collecting data did I then begin to verify some of the reasons of why the authors have shared similar descriptions of emotions for thousands of years: the authors were not consciously aware of their emotions. A portion of the SQ project was to gather information of how well humans could observe the world around them. By asking a very simple question, it is easy to observe which things people can consciously perceive, which things are unconsciously perceived, and which things cannot be perceived at all.
As I pointed to in the Observation article, a person can be handed an object and asked to describe the object the best that they can. Most individuals did not include things like weight in their descriptions, but later the people could be asked questions about the weight, and the people could then answer the questions. The sensory perception of weight was not consciously recognized, and through additional SQ questions and investigations it was found that the unconscious perceptions were very weak. Without the right questions, the people may have never known that they held a memory of weight, and the questions also verified to what degree that the individuals had acquired knowledge through other sensory perceptions.
After tens of thousands of experiments, the SQ data showed three primary conclusions:  few humans can consciously perceive details of anything,  most humans fail to consciously be aware that much of their knowledge of their environment is acquired unconsciously, and  only an individual who can consciously perceive with depth can know which questions will illustrate a normal person's limitations. After I made some of the general SQ results public, I saw several 'expert scientists' attempt similar experiments, but the questions that the 'experts' asked proved that the 'experts' did not know what they were asking, nor did they know of the reasoning behind the experiments themselves. (The 'experts´' minds invented more bizarre conclusions, partly because the 'experts' were too lazy and too greedy to ask what the SQ project entailed.)
The SQ project answered far more questions than I had expected. Finally, after a lifetime of wondering why most people make such irrational claims, I now better understand: it is because the people simply cannot consciously perceive the world around them. The SQ data also helps to explain why all ideologies — including western philosophy and science — do not know what an emotion is: the philosophers and scientists cannot consciously feel their own emotions, nor describe them.
My original curiosity has now been soothed, but the answer has also heightened a parallel problem: it is difficult enough to hold a conversation with an average person, but it is even more difficult to hold a conversation about things that the people cannot consciously observe within themselves. My initial choice of response had been to do as I normally do, to simply not publicly talk about difficult topics, but, the topic of emotions is too important to ignore, and much too important when related to the beliefs of science.
[5a ii] Referencing memories of a complex event requires spatial durations and spatial inter-relationships that exist independently from two-dimensional linear time. Spatial durations are attenuated or absent within most humans — including scientists — which sums the obvious: the scientists cannot mentally store nor recreate an act of creation. An attempt to mathematically measure the spatial durations would merely result in a lifetime of calculations that would illustrate that the spatial durations are as infinite relative to man's mathematics: outside of man's two-dimensional mathematics, all things appear to be infinite because mathematics cannot measure beyond the three dimensions of height, width, and length. An easy example is to ask a mathematician to measure all dimensions of a fractal to the fractal's originating source as well as to the fractal's sums of relationships and interactions of all other fractals of past, present, and future. Mathematics cannot do it, not so much as for one single fractal, and it becomes an obvious conclusion that mathematics cannot measure a universe of fractals that extend beyond three dimensions. Spatial durations can use 'natural measurements' (I will avoid offering a description) to measure fractals and non-3D variables, but mathematics cannot, nor can science because science is rooted in mathematics.
[5b] From an outside-observer's point of view, emotions might be judged philosophically and mathematically without knowing what is being judged. All philosophical and scientific inquiries into the nature of emotions are always formed upon false assumptions, and the resulting conclusions are always false.
[5c] As will later be exhibited, the nature of science and philosophy is negative. Sciencians and Philosophians are only able to experience negative emotions, and the descriptions of all emotions are all negative. Sciencians and Philosophians cannot experience nor understand a positive emotion, and without an understanding of positive emotions, the Sciencians and Philosophians have also failed to grasp a creative nature of Creation.
[5d] From the firsthand point of view, the mental recreation of how an emotion was formed can be accomplished through 'reliving' the experience by using memories to mentally self-create the complex felt bodily sensations of the past experience. Within the firsthand point of view, the experience was a verb, an action, a series of countless actions that were in simultaneous motion and interdependent on all other actions. There are no 'studs and sheetrock' components, nor any other 'this component and that component'; the actions are the actions themselves (for numerous legitimate reasons I will not enter into a description of the verbs themselves). The act of mentally recreating the experience is through a similar duration and direction of time as when the emotion nascented. Thinking 'backwards' in time cannot recreate the new emotion nor find the new emotion's components.
[5e] Science's, philosophy's, and mathematics' logic claims that all things must remain identically the same regardless of which direction of time might be applied when measuring the things. There are no known examples of where science or mathematics have measured things relative to different time frames (science's claim of measuring different time flows does not make the claim true).
"Here the suggestion is obvious that the phenomena of life operate as Clerk Maxwell's supposed "sorting demon," through reversing the second law of thermodynamics and utilizing the unavailable or reserve energy of matter; only Lord Kelvin, instead of deriving this from the ordinary physical laws, immediately concluded that some mysterious vital force must be in operation. Under my theory, this reversal can be explained on the pure basis of the theory of probability." (The Animate and The Inanimate, William James Sidis, originally printed in 1920, Richard G. Badger, Publisher, The Gorham Press, reprint 2006, SesquIQ High IQ Society, Woven Strings Publishing™, graphics and supplemental wording Copyright© 2006 by Larry Gowdy.)
According to William Sidis, Kelvin recognized something else, a "vital force". Regardless of the term's absence of meaning, Kelvin did earn respect for recognizing that there is more to Reality than what can be measured two-dimensionally within a closed system.
It may indeed appear rational to a normal person to assume that a binary future-to-past sequence ought to obey the same probability laws of reasoning as mathematics' past-to-future interpretations, but the assumption is incorrect. Outside of the three dimensions, time does not flow three-dimensionally, nor do events flow the same, and it is an incorrect assumption to assume that all things outside of three dimensions must behave as if they are three-dimensional. Too, proving that the future-to-past sequence does not follow past-to-future sequences, it also proves that science and mathematics are unaware of the so-called 'vital forces' that enable the past-to-future sequences to exist, which illustrates that man-made mathematics and reasoning are incomplete and flawed.
"These figures cannot be grasped by our minds, but can be reduced to a geometrical formula and can be constructed by the aid of geometry and algebra. It is possible to construct by this means figures of the fourth dimension with 100 sides or faces called hecatonicocehedridgons or figures with 600 sides called sexicocehedrigons. Often there are gaps left in the fourth dimensional spaces, and I fill these up by slipping in polyhedrigons of the appropriate shape." (William James Sidis' talk on the fourth dimension, Boy of 10 Addresses Harvard Teachers, The New York Times, Copyright© January 6, 1910.)
William James Sidis admitted that he could not think beyond three dimensions — while he also made the false claim that all humans are identical of inability — and he proved his own inability when he attempted to explain a fourth dimension through use of two- and three-dimensional lines.
A favorite example that I like to use is of a deck of 52 cards. If one card is three-dimensional, then is the deck of 156 dimensions? Placing many three-dimensional objects together does not create a fourth dimension, nor a 156th dimension. Three dimensions consist of width, height, and depth. Any other dimension must not have width, height, and depth. Mathematics cannot measure anything that is not the man-made concept of width, height, and depth. Mathematics cannot measure a fourth dimension.
The three-dimensional universe did not magically appear from nowhere as three dimensions, nor does the three-dimensional universe exist solely as three-dimensional objects. The three dimensions are the products of something else. Without knowing what the something else is, no mathematical reasoning can know how three-dimensional objects respond to other 'dimensions'. It is a fallacy of logic to claim that the universe must obey man's two-dimensional mathematics.
William James Sidis has been touted to have been the world's greatest genius, and some universities have been touted to be the most superior of knowledge, but when the most simple of things are not recognized by the geniuses and 'experts', it is an illustration of a weakness in man's manner of reasoning. William Sidis' "fourth dimension" and "pure basis of the theory of probability" are symptomatic of the lower intellectual range of normalcy (see Studies of Cognitive and Emotional Decay Leading to Dementia for definitions). Reductionism of open systems also illustrates a frailty within man's manner of reasoning.
[5f] An emotion is reducible within one type of mental concept, irreducible within another type of mental concept, mentally reducible within the memories when recreating the firsthand experience, and irreducible within the firsthand experience itself. It is not possible to relive the first time that a new emotion is experienced: for as long as the present memories remain of past experiences, never again can the 'new' experience occur. Even if a person could travel back in time to relive the moment, still the experience would only be new to the individual's current interpretation, and not be new to the 'past's future'. The 'future influencing the past' is a very interesting topic, but far too lengthy and not suitable for the current article.
Reducibility and irreducibility are dependent on what the mind wishes to focus on, and what the mind wishes to conceptualize.
Perhaps the easiest way to view it is that reducibility and irreducibility are self-created mental constructs that may indeed appear to be very rational, and might be very useful for elementary-level closed systems, but the mental constructs are self-invented — like how worded classifications are self-created — and the mental constructs do not relate to what is real within Reality. Reality is not binary nor two-dimensional, there are no yes-no things, nor is there a reducibility or an irreducibility except within one's imagination. The experience is real; man's imaginations are imaginations.
Emotions can be measured with 'natural measures', but cannot be measured with man's mathematics. Someday, if man were to ever learn how to measure beyond two dimensions far enough to where he is no longer dependent on Pi, then man might begin recognizing natural measures as well as the natures of emotions.
The problems and difficulties within reducibility and irreducibility illustrate that scientific theories of emotions are severely flawed: pathological science.
Emotions Within Philosophy
The history of western science includes the history of western philosophy, so it is useful to first touch on brief examples of how emotions were described by early philosophers.
Aristotle wrote of fourteen emotions: "anger, contempt, calmness, friendship, enmity (hatred), fear, confidence, shame (and shamelessness), kindness, pity, indignation, envy, and emulation (a variance of envy)". I have listed the emotions in the order that they were written within the book Rhetoric (Book II, Aristotle, The Internet Classics Archive by Daniel C. Stevenson, Web Atomics. World Wide Web presentation is copyright © 1994-2000, Daniel C. Stevenson, Web Atomics.)
Please give attention to Aristotle's list of emotions. Aristotle's emotions were all negative except for the possible exclusions of calmness, friendship, kindness, and pity, which could all still be negative if expressed selfishly or with an underlying rage. Of the many good and positive emotions that exist, why were none listed within Aristotle's list? Within the book, Aristotle's mentions of love were mostly all given as a synonym of desire, self-pleasure, and selfishness, with no reference of love implying  a caring for another person, nor  the nature of love. It appears that Aristotle's list of emotions described an environment of which possessed little or no love, compassion, sympathy, nor any other quality emotion; much like today's.
Upon reading the first paragraphs of Hume's, I put down his writings and never again picked them back up. The following short quote is sufficient:
"All the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct kinds, which I shall call IMPRESSIONS and IDEAS. The difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness, with which they strike upon the mind, and make their way into our thought or consciousness. Those perceptions, which enter with most force and violence, we may name impressions: and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul. By ideas I mean the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning; such as, for instance, are all the perceptions excited by the present discourse, excepting only those which arise from the sight and touch, and excepting the immediate pleasure or uneasiness it may occasion." (David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, circa 1740, Project Gutenberg, Release date February 13, 2010 [EBook #4705], last updated: November 10, 2012.)
Hume was, obviously, a philosopher, a sophist with many unknowable nouns and no descriptive verbs, but, nevertheless, Hume's words are quite useful as an example of common Philosophian nonsense. If Hume's words are to be accepted upon face value, then the words describe a man who had no useful self-awareness nor skill of self-observation, but more importantly, the question must be asked: might it be true that other humans think similarly as what Hume thought? Could it be true that normalcy's consciousness is in fact as distant from one's own perceptions as was Hume's? The answer was found within the SQ project: yes, it is true that normalcy is not conscious of one's own perceptions.
Some recent theories have touched on the idea of emotions having 'multidimensional appraisals' — of at least eighteen dimensions — which is fine for western philosophy, but thousands of years too late and still 'binary-like' of nouns that do not describe the verbed process of how the so-called "appraisals" (i.e. judgments) are formulated or applied. Speaking of and numbering 'appraisals' is little different than claiming to describe an electromagnetic wave by reciting the word watt. The attempt to number the ingredients of an emotion is an act that illustrates  the speaker does not know what an emotion is,  the speaker does not know how their own mind functions, and  the counting also describes the speaker's own limitations of mind.
Some philosophers have remarked that the 'eighteen dimensions' model is "sophisticated". There is nothing sophisticated about a theory that merely expands more unknown verbiage while still avoiding the topic itself. Numbered theories are simply unworthy of attention.
Known modern philosophers still maintain the claim that there cannot exist a positive emotion that has no negative emotion attached, and it is still common to find a philosopher stating that "desire" is a positive emotion. The claim is fine for western philosophy — regardless of the claim being very wrong and inferring that all humans are identical — but the claim does have usefulness within it providing yet another bit of evidence that philosophy and science are negative ideologies.
A relatively recent philosophical topic of debate has been on the word valence. In chemistry, valence generally points to the bonding/combining characteristics of an atom's electrons with different atoms. Philosophy, however, has grabbed-hold of the word and is now energetically inventing new schools of inventions around the word without philosophy first knowing what the word means (of the several philosophical references on valence that I read, none of the authors gave evidence of knowing what the term is supposed to imply). Similar to philosophy having invented meta-ethics, applied ethics, normative ethics, and virtue ethics without knowing what an ethic is, philosophy is doing similarly with terms like 'negative valence', 'positive valence', 'intrinsic valence', and 'ambivalence-valence'. This is the 21st century, an era of computers, movies streamed around the globe, probes to beyond the solar system, and more technology gadgets than most humans can adequately operate, but still philosophy continues to ignore the core necessity of research: firsthand observation. Yes, it might take one to twenty years or more of dedicated effort to achieve an adequate firsthand observation, but there is no other suitable alternative, and philosophy ridicules itself when it continues inventing more unknown nouns while avoiding the responsibility of first knowing what the thing is before giving it a name.
First know what an emotion is, know how it comes into existence, know how the emotion is variable, know all that is individually possible to be known of emotions, and then share one's own personal experience with other individuals who are exerting a similar effort to observe their own emotions. If an individual is incapable of self-observation, then that is okay, the person ought to admit it and go find a different occupation. Inventing nouns and sophisms explains nothing but the heart of philosophy.
The written records of mankind do show an unbroken chain of evidence that normal humans have possessed similar mental traits since the first writings. The story of blind Isaac illustrated a man who could not discern one of his sons from another son through the sense of smell, nor by touch, nor by the sound of voice, nor by size, nor by stance, nor by mannerisms, nor by any other means. Normalcy exists within the abyss of only one usable sensory perception — sight — and of a mind that must invent interpretations of things that the mind is never aware of. The mind of philosophy is the soil upon which science was born and now mimics.
Emotions Within Science
Entering the early twentieth century, the well-known Harvard scholar, psychologist, professor, and philosopher — William James — wrote the following:
"I should say first of all that the only emotions I propose expressly to consider here are those that have a distinct bodily expression. That there are feelings of pleasure and displeasure, of interest and excitement, bound up with mental operations, but having no obvious bodily expression for their consequence, would, I suppose, be held true by most readers. Certain arrangements of sounds, of lines, of colours, are agreeable, and others the reverse, without the degree of the feeling being sufficient to quicken the pulse or breathing, or to prompt to movements of either the body or the face." (The Emotions, Carl Georg Lange (1834-1900), University of Copenhagen, William James (1842-1910), Harvard University, Volume I, Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins Company, 1922)
A depth of one variation of 'love' rages far more intensely-strong than hate; just because most humans choose hate and lust, it does not mean that love must be a weak emotion. All faces always express emotions at all times — only ceasing to change upon death — and just because individuals like James are incapable of recognizing emotions, it does not mean that the emotions do not exist. Love, compassion, caring, affection, reciprocal harmony, and the many other positive emotions are expressed no less strongly by positive humans than what any negative human can express a negative emotion, which appears to suggest three general conclusions:  James could not mentally nor sensorially discern facial and bodily expressions of positive emotions,  James held no positive emotion within himself to be used as a self-reference of knowing what other people's expressed emotions might be, and  there may not have been any positive emotions in James' environment (which is still common today).
It is here that I deleted numerous comments on topics that more clearly pointed at James' and modern science's fraud science, but I have deleted the comments because of good reasons which are best left unspoken of.
Regardless of the underlying reasons for James' claims, James was not qualified to speak on the topic because he had no firsthand experience with the positive side of the topic, and so his words were mere Hume-like Philosophian opinions which later became the underlying nature of science.
"...confine our attention to the more complicated cases in which a wave of bodily disturbance of some kind accompanies the perception of the interesting sights or sounds, or the passage of the exciting train of ideas. Surprise, curiosity, rapture, fear, anger, lust, greed, and the like, become then the names of the mental states with which the person is possessed. The bodily disturbances are said to be the "manifestation" of these several emotions, their "expression" or "natural language;" and these emotions themselves, being so strongly characterised both from within and without, may be called the standard emotions." (William James, The Emotions)
James — as was his style — philosophically rambled at length with not-so-clever sophisms, and he repeated his own lists of negative emotions while omitting almost all potentially positive emotions, but the gist of his claims was obvious enough: he apparently had a mental disability that precluded his potential of recognizing emotions, which in turn negated most every word he wrote about emotions. James' description of his own mind — as stated in Does Consciousness Exist — was that he was not conscious until a thought occurred (a Buddhist might say that James was 'asleep'), which might be one reason of why he gave "surprise" as his first emotion. For myself, surprise is very rare, and only happened when I was startled from a deep sleep, which seems to possibly parallel James' manner of surprise.
It can be a very difficult thing to accept as possibly being true, but when scientists claim of themselves to be unconscious 90% to 95% of the time, and that their emotions and biases are all formed unconsciously, the scientists might actually be correct.
Whether James suffered from Agnosia and/or Alexithymia, and/or any number of other severe mental impairments, the easiest and most straightforward approach is to simply drop all discussion about James due to there not having been any value in his beliefs beyond that of his being a historical example of pathological science.
Diseases of Emotions
Alexithymia is an interesting term given to a mental condition in which an individual is said to be unable to identify and to describe their own emotions — nor the emotions in others — and it has been said that Alexithymia is common in roughly ten percent of the general population. Alexithymia is a mental 'disease' that — like autism — is scaled relative to what is normal for normal humans, that is, a person is diagnosed as having the disease if the person has less mental strength than the normal-average human. However, if the scale were shifted to be relative to those individuals with the mental skills of reading and describing emotions (high SQ), then over ninety-nine percent of all humans would be diagnosed as having severe alexithymia and autism.
The SQ project verified that over 99.9% of the general population literally cannot usefully describe a sensory perception, cannot describe an emotion, and cannot consciously observe much of any details (e.g. Aristotle and James' lists of emotions and facial expressions). Aside from the lengthy SQ data collected, the behavior of humans is evident enough: citizens cannot mentally recognize and identify the dishonest and hateful emotions within politicians, crooks, fraud televangelists, nor anyone else. If the general population were not Alexithymic, then the common gaggles of political candidates would not exist, but they do exist, and they receive votes, which is evidence enough that most humans are 'Alexithymic', as apparently also was Aristotle, James, et al, but, James and the others were among the individuals who invented the beliefs of emotions within philosophy and psychology that are now taught in most schools as true scientific fact.
Modern Scientific Claims
Some individuals — also found within some high IQ societies — speak of their desire to become emotionless 'like Spock', because the individuals assume that an absence of emotion infers a higher intelligence. The individuals' desire is a comedy of Alexithymia: the individuals are obviously incapable of reading the fake facial expressions of actors', and the individuals know so little of the mind that they assume that eliminating expressed thought could somehow increase thought. A rock has no expressed emotions, and a human without emotions would have a mathematically equal IQ as the rock's, as well as be similarly dead — the human creature cannot survive without emotions.
The important thing is for an individual to have stable emotions — not a lack of emotions — but that is for a different topic to touch on later.
It is discourteous as well as physically and mentally harmful — to both the speaker as well as to the individual spoken of — to publicly give the names of living individuals who have made errors in their scientific claims, and so I will not give direct quotes of living scientists'. Individuals who are interested in the topic can easily find the references elsewhere. Nevertheless, living scientists usually list six to seven emotions, but the lists are very similar to the philosophical lists, and the scientific lists tend to be limited to anger, fear, enjoyment, disgust, and sadness (listed in the order as given by at least one living scientist). Another modern list includes surprise. Similarly as to how philosophers took-hold of the unknown word ethic and then philosophically invented classifications of the unknown word (e.g. applied ethics, virtue ethics, etc.), so have scientists philosophically expanded the lists of unknown emotions, resulting in a 'science of emotions' that is not scientific at all: it is pathological science.
Notice again the utter absence of positive emotions within scientific lists. Please, please give attention to how scientists phrase their claims. Negativity has no creative harmony, and without harmony the negativity must be destructive: the negativity of science proves science to be negative and destructive. The words of philosophers' and scientists' have already been written for everyone to see, and the words cannot now be hidden nor pretended to have not existed.
Another modern belief is of some scientists claiming that only one emotion can exist at a time. The claim might be true for those specific scientists, but cannot be true for everyone. The 'scientific' claim is too infantile to so much as to further comment on.
Some scientists have invented a 'scientific system' that they claim can discern through facial expressions whether an individual is speaking the truth or a lie, and within the 'scientific system' there are allegedly seven universal facial expressions of humans' (I am listing the facial expressions in alphabetical order): anger, contempt, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. Again notice that all of the emotions are negative with the possible exceptions of happiness and surprise. (Happiness almost universally occurs during the negative behavior of selfishness, which renders the emotion to almost always be a negative one. Of the few known scientific descriptions of surprise, all of the descriptions were rudimentary, vague, and pointed to a negative unconscious reaction.) I am not a scholar of the 'scientific system', and so I do not know what the scientists' most recent claims might be, but I do hope that the latest conclusions are far more descriptive than a few negative philosophical nouns.
Fraud Scientists Meet Fraud Philosophers
The 'facial expression science' has many weaknesses, but one of the most harmful and most easily verified is of the many videos and books of different scientists meeting and having discussions with a group of individuals of whom I will simply refer to as Philosophians. The Philosophians (as previously commented on in Pathological Science #3 Experts) are frauds and fakes; the Philosophians have an elaborate system of belief, and the Philosophians make many claims of being experts, but the Philosophians and their philosophy are obviously incorrect. If the scientists knew anything whatsoever about the topics that they discussed with the Philosophians, then the scientists would have known that the Philosophians are frauds, and the scientists would not have bragged about their having had discussions with the Philosophians.
The most condemning of the videos is that of the Philosophians claiming to promote love and compassion, and yet the tones of their voices very clearly described the Philosophians to possess no love, nor to possess compassion, but rather the vocal tones described crudeness, coldness, deceit, violence, a belief in their own authority, a belief of having authority over other humans, and selfishness based upon an education and belief of the philosophy's doctrines. It could be argued that the Philosophians might have been speaking the truth as they believed the truth to exist — which could be an ad hoc excuse for why the scientists did not recognize the lies within facial expressions — but the scientists' inability to recognize the emotioned vocal tones, emotioned body language, emotioned aromas, and topic matter combined with facial expressions, proved that the scientists' claims of possessing scientific knowledge of emotions cannot be true.
If the scientists were indeed experts as they claimed, then they would know what love and compassion are, and the scientists would know how love and compassion are expressed. The Philosophians did not express love and compassion, which proved that the Philosophians were liars, and it also proved that the scientists did not know what love and compassion are.
To me, it appeared that the scientists believed of themselves to be experts because they had memorized a lot of words from books, plus they held high titles of authority in their system of belief, and since the Philosophians had also memorized a lot of words and held high titles of authority in their own system of belief, then the scientists plausibly assumed that the Philosophians ought to be experts of the topics discussed. To Sciencians, titles alone may be the sole measure of competency.
About twenty years ago I also dropped all interest in the Philosophians' ideology when learning about two of the Philosophians who visited my region. The Philosophians' expressions, words, and behaviors proved that the individuals were fakes — frauds — and nothing like what they claimed for themselves. Scientists have greatly damaged their own reputations by bragging about their having met with the cultish Philosophians.
[Note: As I finished a previous editing of this article, I happened upon a report about USA documents that allegedly verified that the head Philosophians have accepted large bribes for their own personal use as well as to train their followers as violent guerilla fighters. The Philosophians' followers have been known for over thirty years to be terrorists — not of 'love and compassion' as they claim — and yet scientists continue to boast of having had discussions with the Philosophians. No quantity of ad hoc excuses can now excuse-away the scientists' involvement with the frauds and terrorists.]
Dreams and Violence
An interesting parallel topic is the report that roughly 88% of all people dream about violence and aggression (Dreaming and Consciousness: Testing the Threat Simulation Theory of the Function of Dreaming, Antti Revonsuo & Katja Valli, Department of Philosophy and Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Finland, ©2000). The study also concluded that about 17% of men and 8% of women dreamed about direct physical aggression. Other studies have claimed that over half of all humans begin their dreams with their own violence being acted-out upon other people: the reports have varied from fifty percent to eighty percent, but either way, the number is huge and frighteningly illustrative of subhuman traits. I do not know whether the reports are valid or mere inventions, but I would suspect that the reports have enough substance to suggest that violent people likely do dream of violence, and since there are many violent humans, then it appears plausible that there would also be a similar percentage of people having violent dreams.
I myself have never had a dream in which I was violent towards another person, nor so much as impolite, and so, to me, it is deeply disturbing that so many individuals act-out their violence in dreams. From birth to the age of sixteen, at least twice a week I had a recurring dream of my being around ten years old and suffocating in a subway, but the dream stopped when I saw a holocaust newsreel about the same kind of event (I am very thankful for the dream because it taught me to say no to authority, and it also helped to prevent me from participating in the government-mandated violence in Vietnam). During a stressful period of my life, I had a short series of dreams where another individual was in danger from a dangerous animal, but those dreams quickly ended when I passed the stressful period. During times of my suffering from severe illness, I have had bizarre dreams that altered my emotions to unnatural states, but still in none of the dreams was I violent towards another person. To me, it would be a horrible life to enter into sleep and be subjected to the subhuman aggression that scientific studies point to, and what some scientists claim for themselves.
(Update: In July of 2017, during a time of enduring a bad bug (a free gift from having shopped at Wal-Mart®) I had a dream of defending another person, and I used force to stop the offender. The act greatly troubled me, and though the dream's act was justified and used minimal force, still I now know a portion of what a dream of impoliteness can be like, and the experience further solidified my opinion that people's violent dreams are an indication of an illness.)
If the core of mankind is indeed limited to negative emotional expressions — which the violent dreams and scientific lists of emotions appear to substantiate — then my curiosity is to wonder if the facial expressions of love, compassion, gentleness, caring, heart-felt politeness, and all of the other positive emotions might only be common among the higher-developed conscious humans (it is true that I, myself, have not witnessed positive facial expressions, vocal tones, nor any other positive trait within the lower strata of homo sapiens).
The 'facial expression science' ideas may not be quite so terribly wrong if the claims were to be gauged relative to the general population: citizens vote for criminal politicians, and so, if the average human cannot consciously feel and recognize the dishonesty and corruption within themselves, then they cannot discern the dishonesty and corruption within politicians' faces and voices, and then too, maybe the 'facial expression science's' list might indeed be about all that the average human can recognize, because the people cannot recognize emotions in other people that the observers cannot consciously feel nor express themselves.
It is understandable that some individuals may not easily recognize some facial expressions of other individuals' who are of different racial features, but facial features do not exist by themselves, nor do the observer's interpretations occur solely upon seeing specific facial muscles being contracted and relaxed. Body language also occurred along with a series of events that led to the event of discerning a facial feature, plus the mind had to 'think' and interpret the events. It is a popular scientific belief that all biases and emotions occur unconsciously, which might be true for the scientists and their research participants, but still there were large quantities of mental and physical activities occurring during each interpretation of an individual's facial expression, and since the 'facial expression science' does not appear to list any of the activities, then the 'facial expression science' itself further illustrates the SQ results: most humans — including scientists — are unable to observe within themselves their own thoughts.
As mentioned previously, an easy test of conscious awareness is to ask a person to hold and describe an object. One of the things that are rarely or never spoken of in the description is the object's weight. Upon the individuals having given as great of a detailed description as they can, the individuals can still answer questions about the things — such as weight — that they were not consciously aware of having sensed. The simple test proves that the individuals did 'unconsciously' acquire some knowledge from sensory perceptions, but without the right questions the individuals could never use the information to form rational concepts of the object: the individuals could never form a rational scientific theory of the object. The test is similar to the ones used in the SQ project, and the results are extraordinarily vivid in illustrating the limits of the normal mind. Scientists have normal minds, and the individuals much too often simply do not know that their conclusions are formed upon an absence of the data that is obvious to other people.
(I once offered the SQ project and its data to numerous scientists and universities, but they all replied with the similar stance of their already knowing 'everything about everything'. One 'expert' told me personally that it would be "tooting your own horn" if I made the SQ results public: that specific example was as academic envy, of the 'expert' not wanting anyone to know more than what the 'expert' had memorized from books. Nevertheless, from what I have observed, I suspect the real reason of why Sciencians so disliking the SQ project is because the SQ results prove without question that the Sciencians have feeble minds and are not the genius experts that they imagine and claim themselves to be. Individuals who pride themselves on IQ scores and clique titles, it may be too humiliating to score a zero on an elementary test of consciousness that even healthy toddlers score well on. Science, philosophy, and other religions are closed cliques: no new knowledge is permitted, including knowledge of emotions.)
It has been my assumption since an infant that the recognition of emotions in other people is — in part — my own self-referencing mental act, and so, the 'facial expression science' list appears to lend a degree of substantiation to the need of self-referencing, and if an individual cannot feel within themselves love, compassion, tenderness, caring, nor any other positive emotion, then perhaps the individual also could not consciously nor subconsciously recognize the emotions in other individuals.
Of the emotions that I am not personally familiar with, I judge the unknown emotions by how the individual behaves relative to the present situation and environment. I might not know an emotion's name nor know through firsthand experience what the emotion might feel like, but violent reactions do not have to have a name to be recognized as being violent and negative. Too, caring emotions do not have to have a name to be recognized as being gentle, mindful, and positive. Regardless of whether emotions are creative or destructive, the emotions are always different for everyone, and no single noun can be a suitable symbol of the emotions.
It is reasonable to expect some scientists to leap to make a claim that they recognize and possess positive emotions, but the claim is already invalid because the emotions are not listed in science's existing lists of emotions. Science has already permanently disqualified itself by having written its lists of emotions.
An almost humorous story: a few years ago, when I was polite and kind to a new neighbor lady of a different culture (and perhaps a different species it seemed), the lady responded by acting very peculiarly. I noticed that the lady looked at me oddly, but I quickly turned-off further perceptions because I did not want to know more about the lady. My wife later told me that the lady thought that I was "hitting on her", and my wife also warned me with an entertained smile to be careful because the lady was expressing an interest in me. [eek!]
Humans do not express themselves identically the same, and so, self-referencing cannot always be accurate beyond one's own physiological genre, and too, recognition of another person's emotions might not occur if the observer cannot or does not give attention to one's own perceptions. Self-referencing is not the only variable: dishonest people still do not recognize dishonesty in other dishonest people, and so, although self-referencing might be necessary in some scenarios, if an individual is incapable of self-recognition and of analyzing other's behaviors, as well as being incapable of recognizing facial and tonal emotions, then even those individuals would recognize nothing.
As an example of a variation, when young I attentively listened to two adults speak of a relative as being envious. I remembered the relative's behavior during the referenced time, and though I had not experienced envy myself — and therefore had no idea what the emotion implied — still I formed a mental concept that 'envy' was associated with specific emotioned vocal tones, body language, and behaviors relative to specific scenarios. It was much later before I learned that applying a color prior to an emotion (e.g. green with envy) implied an unspecified intensity of the emotion. (During the past fifteen years I have attempted to use words of color to infer varying intensities of some perceptions, but the public response was of some individuals claiming that I had synesthesia (i.e. seeing colors when hearing sounds). Apparently, some 'expert' scientists cannot so much as grasp what used to be obvious even to toddlers. After a long sigh, I now rarely so much as attempt to explain analogies of colors.)
Some emotions can be judged to exist if the individual recognizes both the vocal emotions and body language as well as both being simultaneously weighed to specific events, but still the emotion itself cannot be fully understood without feeling the emotion one's self. (I myself still do not know what envy really is; there has never been anything for me to feel envy for, and though I suspect that envy is composed of negative traits such as greed, selfishness, the desire for social rank, and the lack of wishing well for another person, I cannot say so with confidence.)
For myself, the question of envy is still on my mind because I have not yet found an answer (and now, today, I hope that I never do), but the question has been useful to me as an illustration to myself that though I may recognize a person's emotioned tones of voice, body, and mental patterning, still I do not think the word 'envy' when an individual is experiencing envy, because I sincerely do not know what envy is, and so, therefore, for myself, if I were the man who held the responsibility of listing all emotions, my list might not include envy because I have not witnessed it firsthand within myself. For a man to know of an emotion, then he has felt the emotion himself, and no man can accurately create a list of emotions that he has not felt himself.
The recognition of love — due to its complexities and the needed prerequisites of harmonizing ingredients — is only possible for those individuals who love, and who have the intellectual ability to  self-choose positive emotions, to  self-reference the existence of the emotions, and to  recognize the facial, bodily, and vocal emotions within other people. If an individual were self-aware and possessed the ability to self-reflect observations, then the person might be able to recognize positive behaviors as being positive in other people even if the observer had no love himself.
The scientific lists of emotions omit love, compassion, politeness, mindfulness, and the many other positive emotions because the scientists have apparently never felt the emotions. Yes, it is true that some scientists claim to know what love is, but when asked to describe their love, they commonly reply with the words lust, habit, jealousy, and other negative emotions. The heart of science is negative, and science very clearly describes itself as being negative every time scientists speak of emotions.
Using the SQ project's methods, a scientist can be asked to describe an emotion, and the answers will be negative even if the scientist claims the answers are positive (western philosophy and science do not so much as know what positive and negative are, which is obvious by how the scientists describe positivity, and how scientists debate topics such as good and evil (especially when the debates are between atheist scientists and theists)). Through asking further questions, it can be further substantiated that the scientists' emotions are darkly negative with no positive emotions whatsoever. I am confident that some people would disagree, but I am similarly confident that the individuals still could not describe the emotion that they claim to possess.
Popular books on 'the science of happiness' tell the readers that happiness is found by meditating on one's lusts and desires. Sure, maybe lustful and self-centered selfish people might feel a dark form of 'happiness' when day-dreaming of material riches, social authority, and other forms of hate, but the books do not speak of positive emotions, nor of a positive happiness. The books are but one more bit of evidence that science and academia are institutions of negativity.
A negative 'happiness' expresses little physical body movement (as what James used as criteria of discerning emotions), but positive 'happiness' is accompanied with a large quantity of bodily movements, a large quantity of emotioned vocal tones, and numerous other expressions which are obvious (or, at least, are obvious to conscious humans). The absence of positive 'happiness' within James' and science's lists of emotions adds another bit of evidence that science has no positivity.
The examples of false and contradictory scientific claims are almost endless.
Another modern 'science of emotions' uses a wheel of emotions that suggests contrasts of each emotion (e.g. anger-fear, joy-sadness). The colored wheel is more sensible because — like mixing paint colors — the wheel allows for a wide variance of emotional 'colors' by blending different emotions (not synesthesia). The wheel may not yet be ideal — and cannot be ideal because emotions are not two-dimensional nor do they possess two-dimensional opposites — but still the wheel is useful as an analogy of variable emotions.
Using the emotion wheel as an illustration, if each color were interpreted as an ingredient, then if an individual knew what the ingredients were of a specific emotion, then the individual could create the emotion by first creating the ingredients. Likewise, non-Alexithymic individuals who are skilled with the act of self-observation can explain with great details each of the ingredients within each moment's emotion.
For around three years, an interesting project of my own has been to write semi-fictional scenarios aimed for the purpose of creating unique, intense, and multi-faceted positive emotions that otherwise would not be possible in today's societies. My little hobby book has now exceeded 800,000 words and continues to grow, and though I may know which ingredients create which emotional response, still there are some emotions that cannot occur except through firsthand reciprocation, and since modern societies do not possess the potential of expressing positive reciprocation, then I may never have the opportunity to experience the happy emotions.
John Mill's Utilitarian 'happiness' is another example of philosophers and scientists having invented ideologies that falsely claim to possess true knowledge. A happiness formed upon hate and lust is not a positive thing, nor is it a good thing for humans.
The emotions wheel ought to be interpreted as a suggestive illustration, not a real and actual 'cookbook' of emotions. Emotions are not two-dimensional, nor are they so easily segregated into static two-dimensional colors. The only thing that prevents there being an infinite number of emotions is an individual's finite life. All emotions change, never can an individual experience the identical same emotion twice, and as the individual ages and gains new life experiences, so likewise does the person's ability to experience new emotions increase (the possible exemptions might be for automatons, or as which some scientists have claimed for themselves, emotions are the effect of the brain releasing chemicals that create each emotion that is binary-identical in all beings, but the scientists' claims are obviously incorrect on all points).
Describing emotions with a color wheel is like describing an electrical field with a color wheel: the wheel illustrates nothing of electricity, nothing of wave forms, nothing of transductance, nor does it explain how and why the waveforms exist. A color wheel is as a Philosophian sophism of nouns, and the wheel explains nothing whatsoever.
Some humans may have frail intellects and be unable to mentally mature, but conscious individuals never stop maturing, and the conscious individuals possess the potential to self-create emotions that the selfish humans will never know to exist.
In the real world, IQ scores mean almost nothing. Thousands of times the SQ project verified that regardless of how high one's IQ might be, still the individual is over 99.9% likely to score zero positives on SQ tests: SQ may be indicative of IQ, but IQ is not indicative of SQ. Alexithymia does not fade with higher IQ scores, which illustrates that IQ tests do not measure the actual intellectual application towards one's environment, but rather generally only grades one's familiarity and quickness with two-dimensional cultural beliefs and biases. If Imre Soos' The Rational Evolution of the Specie chart used non-Alexithymic SQ instead of IQ as a scale, then the splitting of species would appear far more dramatic, irreversible, and having already split since at least the time of the 'early hominoids'. (Some have suggested that the Neanderthal are today's stunted humans: stunted humans cannot discern facial expressions, and so, of course, they also would not be able to discern the facial differences of subspecies, including their own. Another thought asks about the physical strength of human societies in which the inhabitants do best if they cannot smell their neighbors, cannot read their neighbors' facial expressions, and are generally oblivious to the world around them, which enables the individuals to live in societies, which also — on the surface — appears to be a plausible reason of why modern man has been bred as cattle to be docile-numb to his negative environment, but those are mere muses and are not intended to be taken as final sums.)
Extremely far more important than IQ and SQ is an individual's ability to consciously care and to hold quality traits that are harmonious to one's environment. Conscious gentleness, conscious gracefulness, conscious consideration for other beings, conscious reciprocation of the affection of caring for another's feelings, and of the many other positive quality traits that harmonize with other individuals' quality traits to create a life and a society that is productive, creative, and very beautiful (beautiful to individuals who value quality and positivity, but not beautiful to selfish people who value self-gain and other negativities). Creative harmony does not exist within the invention of man's scales of statistics, but rather the creative harmony exists within an individual's own harmony of mind and heart. Individuals with IQs of two-hundred and above are still ignorantly destroying the planet — and voting for crook politicians — and so IQ means nothing beyond that of being but one of the many variations of the same self-destructive species.
One of the predominate reasons of why the selfish humans have continued to survive is because of the conscious humans having given the selfish humans technologies and knowledge of how to survive. Once the public sharing of knowledge and technologies finally ceases completely, selfish man will quickly fade, as man is today approaching close.
If the average human were so smart — and were 'the universe's greatest achievement' as many individuals have claimed — then why has western philosophy and science not yet answered any question of emotions, consciousness, thoughts, memories, love, and beauty?
A bizarre and deeply disturbing discovery has been that of observing humans who cannot discern the differences between a dog's playful barks and aggressive barks. It is very troubling to see animal control employees not recognize a violent dog until after the dog has bitten a victim, and law enforcement employees are often no better skilled. It has been my experience that most mammals recognize the emotional tones of other species', and as a general rule, emotions are a universal language, except for humans. On my rural land, I commonly walked with deer, rabbits, road runners, quail, and many other species, partly because I spoke to the animals with kindness. Similarly, in the city it has been common for customers' dogs to immediately befriend me, including the dogs that are normally very protective. To me, of all of the land-based mammal and reptile species that I have witnessed, all of them except one species responded to emotioned sounds and emotioned body language, and most of the larger animals also responded to scents and other physical features. The only large animal known to me that usually does not consciously recognize emotioned voices and body language, is man.
How Many Emotions are There?
And so, back to the original question: how many emotions are there? It depends on the individual. Some people may only have two to five basic emotions because the individuals are of selfish minds, but other individuals may have as a song of millions of continuously flowing distinct emotions that are never relegated to static nouns. As a brief example, to one person the emotion of fear while as a child may be indistinguishable to the emotion of fear as an adult, but to another individual, the experience of fear as a child would be fully different than a fear experienced during adulthood because the adult emotion would be colored with countless additional variables gained through life experiences that are weighed as memories and influence the current emotions. Emotions are not singular binary on-off states of the brain as the news media science writers too often infer, unless, of course, as science also too often claims for itself, that the scientists are stunted human automatons. Of the individuals who angrily claim of themselves to be smart, if their claim were true, then please describe an emotion, or even consciousness: it cannot be done by a selfish mind, and no quantity of anger or ad hoc excuses can change the fact.
Humans are not identical, not the same, nor equal, and neither are one man's emotions identical to another man's emotions. Regardless of what philosophy or psychology might claim, neither of them yet know what an emotion is — or at least to my knowledge have not yet made the information public — which also means that neither can create a legitimate list of emotions, which also means that all known scientific theories of emotions are pathological science.
On the topics of love and beauty, every man's love and beauty is different than everyone else's. Regardless of what the Sciencians claim, it is not possible to experience the same love and beauty as another person's. If science knew what beauty is, then there would be none of the Sciencian-Philosophian savannas and other absurd inventions (please see What is Beauty for references), but the absurdities do exist, and they are being preached by the Pulpiteers, which absolutely proves without any question and without any doubt that science is always fully one-hundred percent wrong when it claims that it knows what emotions are.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing is to present a verifiably proven fact and yet the scientists still cannot rationalize how the fact proves a scientific claim as false. One fact is that scientists cannot consciously observe their own emotions (tens of thousands of experiments have proven it to be so, and even the scientists admit it to be true), but the scientists still claim that they know what emotions are, and the scientists also claim that everyone has the same emotions. What else can I say? If apparently no known Sciencian on earth can cross-light and rationalize the obvious, then no quantity of explanations can force the Sciencians to think things that the Sciencians cannot think. Science's claims of knowing what everyone thinks and feels is a claim of omniscience, or at least a magical psychic ability to know what everyone on earth is thinking and feeling. When confronting science believers with the facts, the science believers tend to 'bipolar explode', which appears to be an involuntary unconscious emotional reaction that further reinforced the very topic that the science believers exploded over.
Too, the emotions wheel is again useful for another illustration, that of the wheel not including no less than four very important variables that are unknowns to science, including the root of each individual's nature. All emotions are reducible (so to speak), and each lead to each individual's originating nature, what I once referred to as the foundational emotion (Reality, 2006), which is unique to each individual. Each individual is unique, each individual began existence under unique circumstances that no one else can ever again do anywhere in the universe, and so — regardless of what Aristotle, James, and all the other self-proclaimed 'experts' might claim — it is utterly impossible for two individuals to ever, ever, ever experience the same emotion, and for science and western philosophy to have stated otherwise, their words proved that the individuals knew nothing about the nature of emotions.
Physiological Effects of Emotions
"In grief, the inner organs are unquestionably anæmic as well as the skin. This is of course not obvious to the eye, but many phenomena prove it." (The Principles of Psychology, William James, 1890, quoting Danish physiologist, C. Lange.)
For a hundred years science has recognized that negative emotions are damaging to the mind, the body, the family, society, the very human species itself, and to all other living beings, and yet no known scientist will act according to the knowledge. I have been told that there are scientists who promote positivity, but when I rushed to read their papers, I found the scientists to merely be preaching the old 'get rich quick' schemes that feed upon people's greed, selfishness, and other self-centered lusts, which summed the whole of the scientists' teachings to be negativity. Apparently, the scientists do not so much as know what the word 'positive' implies, which renders the scientists' claims to be pathological science.
I have seen anecdotal references to scientists stating that torture harms a person's mind and body, and kills brain cells, but I myself have not further researched the references due to their negative nature. Negative emotions are torture, regardless of whether the torture is intentional or not.
"Editor's Preface: The publication, in 1872, of Darwin's The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals had a profound effect upon the development of Psychology. Darwin's book gave to three men the impetus to develop the theory of the emotions as organic processes, and this theory has not only become so strongly entrenched in scientific thought that it is practically assumed today as the basis for the study of the emotional life, but has also led to the development of the hypothesis of reaction or response as the basis of all mental life: a hypothesis which is rapidly supplanting the phrenologists' theory of brain-activity. (The Emotions, Carl Georg Lange, University of Copenhagen, William James, Harvard University, Volume I, Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins Company, 1922.)
The idea of "organic processes" can have numerous different interpretations, depending on from which point of view an individual approaches the topic. Some philosophers and scientists had believed that all thoughts and emotions were the manifestations of souls or some other manner of 'spiritual' action upon the body, and from that point of view it might appear to be a 'new' thing to think of thoughts and emotions as being caused by 'organic' processes.
The first obviousness is that the scientific beliefs of the time were formed upon philosophicalized imaginations; not formed upon firsthand experience, not formed upon self-observation, and not formed upon a knowledge of the body and mind.
"I am attacked by two very opposite sects, the scientists and the know-nothings. Both laugh at me, calling me 'the frogs' dancing master'. Yet I know I have discovered one of the greatest forces in nature". (Luigi Galvani, Italian physicist (1737-1798), accredited discoverer of electrically-induced muscle contraction: galvanism.)
Darwin's era was little advanced beyond Galvani's: the science of the day knew next to nothing about electricity, and the same problem still exists today within biologists claiming that over a hundred years of vividly detailed memories, thoughts, and feelings can exist through binary sparks within a brain of only about 500 billion cells. The science of biology is pathological science itself because biology has invented absurd claims about the very electricity that biologists apparently know nothing of. 'Expert' biologists not knowing the difference between a watt and a volt, 'expert' biologists not knowing the difference between binary and analog, 'expert' biologists apparently not possessing any useful knowledge of anything whatsoever, and yet the 'experts' still claim that everyone should accept and believe in the biologists' inventions because the inventions are "true science".
I watched one well-known biologist begin a speech by first stating that 'all philosophical interpretations of the mind were to be ignored', but the biologist almost immediately began speaking philosophically about binary sparks and how the sparks occurred within patterns within the brain, and that from the patterns of binary sparks all consciousness, all thoughts, and all memories were created. Over two-hundred years have passed since Galvani, and still biology has not advanced.
"Surprise, curiosity, rapture, fear, anger, lust, greed, and the like, ...may be called the standard emotions." (The Emotions, William James)
The list of emotions given by a scientist are more descriptive of science and the scientists themselves than that of the topic. I myself have never witnessed a scientist whose list of emotions was not fully or almost fully negative and cruel. Scientists' lists of emotions do not begin with love, kindness, gentleness, politeness, modesty, compassion, mindfulness, nor any other positive emotion, but rather scientists usually only list hateful and mean emotions, by which the scientists describe themselves.
The scientific lists of emotions have changed little since the invention of psychology, with the latest lists still showing the scientists to only know of destructive emotions: even love is described with negative cruelties including Sigmund Freud's "Now object-love itself presents us with a second example of a similar polarity that between love (or affection) and hate (or aggressiveness). ...From the very first we recognized the presence of a sadistic component in the sexual instinct." (Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Sigmund Freud, Translated and Newly Edited by James Straghey, Introduction by Gregory Zilboorg, W-W-Norton&Company, New York — London, James Strachry, reprinted by arrangement with Liveright Publishing Corporation, Introduction Copyright© 1959 by Bantam Books.)
Freud should have been permanently locked in an insane asylum, but instead he became one of the world's leading scientists.
If a scientist only knows of aggression and negative emotions, then the scientist is aggressive and negative themselves, and every word from their mouth is of hate. No inference is necessary; science's own lists of emotions repeatedly describe itself to be an ill ideology.
Intellectual discrimination and judgment are inferior. The ideas do not cross-light each other, but remain relatively isolated. Hence, the most absurd contradictions are swallowed, so to speak, without arousing the protest of the critical faculty. (The Measurement of Intelligence, Lewis M. Terman)
No scientist (known to me) has yet 'cross-lighted' that they preach negative emotions to be harmful while the scientists themselves still behave with negative emotions while also preaching negative emotions to be "good". Science possesses no 'critical faculty', which is one of the reasons why pathological science dominates all science topics.
The conscious attention within an act of caring for other people, the attention contains some of the ingredients that are necessary to be consciously aware of things outside of one's own self. If an individual does not care for everything outside of one's self, then the individual is not being consciously aware of the things. I presented the brief article Scientific Method - Twelve Logic Steps as a Methodology of Investigation as a general idea of how one's own emotional state influences one's own ability to be aware of one's own environment. Science does not hold caring as a high standard of the scientific method, nor has science so much as included the emotion within science's list of emotions, which permanently seals the conclusion that science purposefully avoids conscious observations, and that all scientific claims of 'having made observations' cannot be correct. I have been stating the same general thing most all of my life — care about other people — but Sciencians still insist that they can know everything about everything through the hate of "indifference" towards the thing being observed. Indifference is synonymous to a callous disregard for other people, which is a core symptom of psychopathy (science's own definition), which does very clearly describe science itself.
If scientists believed in their own science, then the scientists would be among the world's most loving, caring, gentle, polite, modest, and mindful humans, but no known scientist has ever behaved with positive emotions, which permanently seals the judgment that science is an ideology of hypocrisy and deceit. If the public believed in the science of emotions — that is, the science that believes that negative emotions destroy the mind and body, and that emotions are passed-down to offspring — then there would be no wars, no pollution, no anger, no greed, no selfishness, no violence, no marches, no politicians, no militaries, and in their place we would have schools that caringly instruct children towards positive emotions, we would have happy families, all of mankind's intelligence would soar without the numbing effects of negativity, and we would be living on a paradise planet. Those things do not exist, which proves that no one — absolutely no one on earth — believes in science, and anyone who claims to believe in science is admitting that they do not know what they are saying.
A legitimate question has been asked: what if humans had begun to promote positivity when science first discovered the ill effects of negativity in the 19th century? Might it have been possible to avoid WWI, WWII, the Korean war, Vietnam, and all of the other wars? Hundreds of millions of humans were reported to have been killed in wars during the 20th century, and no one believed in science. For thousands of years all coherent ideologies have known of the destructive nature of negative emotions, and yet all societies have remained negative. Many ancient societies are said to have sacrificed their children to false gods, and though the behavior may appear outrageously demented, today, right now, in the twenty-first century, humans willingly sacrifice their children to science while claiming that it is okay for their living children to be vivisected unto death, because it is all in the name of science. It appears that the selfish intellect of the most primitive of ancient subhumans has not yet evolved, and today, the behavior's god is named science.
Again, science does not know what an emotion is; it never has, never will, and no science believer cares. Scientists described their own selves and their own science when the scientists gave lists of emotions: the lists are there for everyone to see, and no quantity of ad hoc excuses can now hide the lists.
Individuals ought to look at their own lists of emotions, and recognize themselves in their own words, written by their own hand. The lists describe the individuals' own natures, and with the lists having been written, the lists are permanent, and cannot be changed.
If an individual did not write a list of their emotions, then the absence of a list describes the individual's non-participation in their own life, and that too cannot be changed.
 The SQ project verified tens of thousands of times that Sciencians cannot consciously describe an emotion (nor any other sensory perception),  known Sciencians themselves state that their emotions and biases are unconscious,  the Sciencians' lists of emotions are predominately all negative and cruel,  the Sciencians claim to know everything about the emotions that the Sciencians themselves admitted to being unable to consciously observe,  Sciencians claim to be the sole experts on the topic of emotions,  Sciencians claim that their invented Philosophian lists of emotions are 'science',  Pulpiteers and Popular Science parrot what the 'experts' state, but there is no parroting of positive emotions from Pulpiteers and Popular Science, which appears to infer that the Hobbyists and Sciencians have only spoken of negative emotions, and  Sciencians bipolar-explode when someone does not bow to Sciencians' Sciencism. Even when all of the evidence is laid-out, and even when the Sciencians themselves fully admit the facts to be correct, still the Sciencians insist that their science has no flaw. The science of emotions is not merely pathological, it is psychopathic (as defined by science's own definitions of what psychopathy is).
Almost never does an 'expert' describe their own personal thoughts or experiences. 'Expert' answers are commonly limited to words of nouns that the 'experts' memorized from books — or invented themselves — which leaves the 'experts' appearing to have no firsthand knowledge of the topics, and without the firsthand experience the 'experts' are not expert at all. To me it is important that a discussion revolve around firsthand observations that are reciprocally expanded through extrapolations and questions, and that the discussion is not reduced to the mere unthinking recitation of another man's words that had been memorized in a school class.
Verbs, verbs, verbs, why cannot science speak a verb? The emotion of beauty, for example, when I begin describing the perception, I never use nouns, but rather I point to verbs, actions, intensities, of natural measurements, of how the very specific different observations are self-reflected, of the act of sensing and mentally evaluating the things that combine and create the sense of beauty within me. The normals like Aristotle, Hegel, Hume, James, and all modern Sciencians used nouns that hold no meaning, and thousands of years have passed while man continues using unknown nouns for things that his mind cannot perceive nor fathom: his philosophy and science are imaginary, made-up, and vacuous.
He who can, does, and he who cannot, becomes a philosopher or a scientist. It requires effort and dedication for an average person to achieve a self-awareness that is suitable for the self-observation that is required to form descriptions of emotions, but no known scientist has exerted an effort to learn anything beyond what can be memorized from books or be philosophically invented. If a scientist cannot perform well when asked simple SQ questions, then the scientist's theories cannot help but be pathological science.
Now, back to the original question of emotions, no one has ever asked me a question of emotions, and so I do not have a skilled answer learned from repeated replies, but the following was written for the first time when I first posed to myself the question of emotions before writing this article, and I have greatly abbreviated and lightly edited the words for public use. The logic behind my giving a list of my own personal emotions will be self-explanatory in the following paragraphs.
My Initial Answer
"After a lengthy pause of attempting to understand what the irrational question is asking for, I summed the conclusion that the question is based upon an assumption that there are distinct emotions of a quantity small enough for an average human to memorize, which to me appears to suggest that the question is assuming that my answer ought to agree with the same answers as taught in school books. Arranging my thoughts within a manner that would hopefully be best understood by the greater percentage of individuals, I would then answer:
There is no specific number of emotions; there are more 'emotions' than can be counted, and no two individuals experience the same emotions, but since the question is begging a list of emotions, then I will begin listing emotions known to me, and I will list them relative to those that are the strongest, most frequent, and come to mind first. Love... the 'love' that I do not speak of, to me it is the most beautiful thing in the universe, a love that I would not trade for anything — not eternal life, not an infinity of parallel universes, not god-like powers, not even my own soul. The love, when contemplated, brings to mind the parable of the merchant who, having found a great pearl, went and sold all that he owned to buy the pearl. The parable is easy to understand, but it means nothing until the moment that an individual has found their own pearl, one that is of more value than gods, heavens, paradises, riches, and life itself. That is my pearl, and the emotion is more than the body can hold.
Then there are many other degrees of 'love', some of which are paths to the pearl, and within the loves there is great health, the body reacts positively, the mind is clear, each step is graceful, and I am in awe of the great beauty. In the lesser forms of love, there is more beauty, the beauty of reciprocative harmony, the creativity of Nature's nature, and though the lesser forms of love are beautiful, still they rely upon the existence of the body reacting to its environment, and so, the lesser forms of love cannot exist without the presence of a positive environment.
Skipping down to the emotions of beauty, my mind and breathing pause when my body relives the moments of great beauty, and I am in awe of what is possible within Nature. With my knowing that the original question was asking for a list of emotions, I will continue by briefly touching on a few generalized nouns and verbs that hold meaning to me, but may not hold meaning to other individuals: — compassion, the act of hurting for another because I too have suffered similar experiences in life — sympathy, the act of rationalizing an individual's predicament that I myself have not experienced — kindness, the act of emitting a beautiful warmth that is composed of compassion and sympathy — mindfulness, a radiant act that is a component of kindness — gentleness, an act that is of mindfulness and kindness expressed physically towards another while with the wish to be kind — and then the many others that include intensities of politeness, modesty, meekness, and with each circling within closed loops of connections with the other. My every thought is an emotion expressed, that is felt, and then interpreted into words to be communicated, and so, my list of emotions would be countless millions of times more than all of my life's thoughts and words combined. At a great distance, and within a displeasingly dark animal nature, there had been times that I knew what frustration is, an act of ignorantly expecting mammals to all be capable of mindfulness — of sadness, an act formed upon selfish self-pity — of unreasoned imagination, an act that is perhaps a prelude to fear — and what anger is, the ignorant act formed of reasoned selfishness."
A little over two years ago I learned what it is to cry with happiness for another person's happiness, and the very strong emotion has now become one of my most cherished because it is formed upon my personal interpretations of an individual's inward qualities that describe to me great beauty. To see a quality individual become happy, it is such a rarity that I am moved with a great compassion that has found a present closure that was formed upon unfortunate pasts that still linger within the moment's path. I may have little experience with the emotion of happiness for myself, but I am very pleased that I have found quality individuals of whom I can feel happiness for.
In recent months I learned what grief is, one that is formed upon compassion, love, sympathy for others, and longings for other people's happiness: the grief was so strong that I was concerned that it might cause death. I am assuming that, of the many different forms of grief, some would be based upon selfish desires, habitual-addiction withdrawals, and other self-centered reactions that are created upon the person grieving for themselves and not grieving for another person. No two people live identical lives, which simply means that no named emotion can mean the same thing to everyone, and so, likewise, one man's grief will never, ever, be the same grief as another man's.
For me, each emotion occurs as if like an eternally changing chorus of felt songs, the same emotions never occur twice — except the higher love, but I know that there is no boundary within creativity — and so, to me, the positive emotions are among the things that I value most in my life, and the positive emotions flow almost continuously, while the few dark emotions are relatively rare, very brief, and embarrassing. If there were a need for me to give an elaboration of different emotions, I would need years to speak enough words that could hint at the natures of the emotions that I am personally familiar with.
My list of emotions does not include envy, which is a thing that I have not yet experienced, because I have not yet found a thing to be envious of. To better clarify, about five years ago I did feel a 'twinge' of envy that weighed a 'fairness' that a beautiful material thing ought to be shared with all people rather than only owned by one person, but the 'twinge' was merely an ingredient that might be within the composition of envy, but I had no desire for myself, nor a desire to unfairly take the object from the owner without the owner feeling a similar fairness. Man's envy is selfish, dark, inwardly flowing, wanting to take from someone else without regard of the other person. My 'twinge' was opposite, and therefore not 'envy' even if the 'twinge' was a semi-portion of one of 'envy´s' little ingredients.
An individual's list of emotions illustrates to themselves what has been experienced, as well as what has not been experienced, and what might be so infrequent that the individual does not think to include the emotion within one's list.
My first goal in life was to experience life so that I could learn from the firsthand experiences what emotions are. It is a goal that has never paused, and in recent years I have finally begun to make very good progress. To me, the idea of people believing that they can know everything about emotions by spending a few minutes reading a book, the behavior illustrates a very sad mind, and the scientific explanations of emotions are so utterly vacant that, to me, the explanations render most all of science to be utterly useless.
Compare the lists of emotions as given by the philosophers, the scientists, me, and your own. Compare how much effort each individual has placed into the researching of emotions. Compare society's emotions by what is known to be the results of negative emotions. If an individual truly does trust and believe in science, then the person will also choose to be kind, polite, gentle, compassionate, and mindful to all other people. The absence of kindness and gentleness proves that all believers in science are hypocrites, and it also proves that all science of emotions is pathological science.
To me, the topic of emotions is the most important thing that man needs to learn if he wishes to survive or to so much as become a coherent species. Many people believe in evolution, and yet they do not cross-light that their negativity is creating a negative future creature that will have evolved from today's negativity. There can never be a good thing about science if the science believers themselves are not good.
For brevity's sake, this article has been greatly reduced of word count and had many related topics removed.