Positive Emotions vs. the Psychopathy of Pathological Science

Positive Emotions vs. the Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Sadism of Pathological Science

Niccolo Machiavelli - Psychopathy of Pathological Science

(PD) Charles Allston Collins - Lost Love

Larry Neal Gowdy - Copyright ©2024 - April 07, 2024

During a seven year cycle of private research, methods were created to enable people to experience positive emotions that cannot naturally occur in modern societies. Of the several different strongly positive emotions, one is the overflowing happiness and crying for another person's happiness. Depending on the individual, the effect begins to occur within two to three hours, and within eight hours the individual is audibly crying with happiness.

Pleasingly, the positive effects also occur in people of whom themselves had never before cried for anyone, not even for themselves.

Progressing further, the method continues to add additional components, of which by the third day the individual's positive emotions will have reached a strength in which the individual will become intensely happy, loving, tearful, and audibly moved upon merely hearing a single word of which is as the 'title' of the thing loved.

Upon hearing that the intensities of positive emotions increase dramatically by the third day, one individual chose to not progress beyond the first day: the positive emotions had already been too strong for that one individual.

Emotional intensities are only limited by each individual's physical ability to endure the intensities. However, through prolonged expressions of the emotions, the physical stamina is increased, enabling stronger emotions. There is no such thing as an 'ultimate' emotion as many religions, philosophies, and scientists claim.

The method of creating specific emotions is natural, not hypnotic, nor artificial, nor artificially induced. The effects are beneficial for health and psychological well-being. If the method's positive components existed in a person's life, then the person would naturally experience a similar happiness throughout life. Unfortunately, the components almost never exist within modern societies.

Within some religions there are teachings of love, but the religions never say what type of love is inferred. Some religions speak of letting-go of desires, but the religions never say how, nor say how it is possible to rid oneself of desire by desiring to not desire. The research project produced a love that is emitted from the heart, the heart burns with love, the heart muscle literally feels sore from the strength of love, the whole body radiates the love, and the love exists within the emission of giving one's heart, life, and soul to another, all while there literally existing no desire whatsoever.

'Zi say: Morning hear way, evening die certain.' (word-per-word draft translation of 里仁 Li Ren - Inner Benevolence #8) (Confucian School #2 - Choose Who You Will Become)

Many people spend decades hoping to achieve what their religions promise, and yet no known person ever achieved the goals. However, within a few days, the research method is able to enable a person to firsthand experience the emotions for real, with each emotion being derived from each person's own self.

The research project illustrated numerous variables about emotions, all of which validate the physics of emotions.

Positive Emotions Versus Negative Emotions

One of the wonderful things about the ancient Chinese texts is that most of them are positive of topics while also speaking of positive emotions that are unknowns to much of the world. However, an individual has to do their own translations; all translations written by academicians are satiated with negativity and fairytales. The differences are stark: though a thing be beautiful, academicians and scientists will make it ugly. The same applies to the topic of emotions.

A useful example is from the article There is Only One Tao - the Common Tao, is Not the One Tao: "Happy anger, sorrow joy, it not-yet issue, call it middle. Issue while always middle temperate, call it harmony." The little saying comes from 中庸 Zhong Yong - 'Middle Use' (aka Doctrine of the Mean) paragraph #1. Christian missionary and Oxford University sinology professor James Legge purposefully mistranslated the nice little sentences to be "While there are no stirrings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, or joy, the mind may be said to be in the state of Equilibrium." As shown in 孔語 Discourses & Sayings of Confucius - Legge vs Ku, James Legge translated Li Ren section 3 to be "The master said: It is only the truly virtuous man who can love, or who can hate, others." Everything James Legge wrote reflected his own personality, which was negative. Merely using common dictionary words, the original Chinese sentence reads similar to "...care-for-people person-ist capable good people, capable bad people." A favored translation highlights the high positive qualities of what the sentence was speaking of. Again, the ancient Chinese writings can be beautiful, but academicians always make them ugly because the academicians themselves are ugly.

From the article Paradox, in 1890 William James' book The Principles of Psychology he quoted Danish physiologist, C. Lange: "In grief, the inner organs are unquestionably anemic as well as the skin. This is of course not obvious to the eye, but many phenomena prove it." Lange's writings are about 135 years old, and Zhong Yong is roughly 2,500 years old, and yet in all that time, still neither academia nor science have grasped the importance of emotions.

The 中庸 Zhong Yong quote above is a useful example of pointing at individuals who do know what emotions are. The idea of "...it not-yet issue, call it middle. Issue while always middle temperate" is useful for giving an idea of how centered individuals respond emotionally. The general gist is that centered people are conscious, in control of their thoughts, and mentally able to choose how to respond to an external stimuli. Centered people are inwardly calm while continuously thinking. Some ideologies talk about 'getting centered', but the act of following a teaching cannot produce centeredness nor inner harmony: each individual must choose to do it on their own.

Ask and Ye Shall Not Receive

When asking academicians, scientists, and religious people about the topic of emotions, not yet has one been found who can describe what an emotion is, nor describe how an emotion is expressed, nor explain an emotion with physics. In physics we have simple mathematical formulas for most everything. We have ohms law of E=IxR plus a myriad of other formulas like E=mc2, all of which are very simple. If the body and mind were electrical as we have been told, then there ought to be a huge quantity of electrical maths and schematics that explain emotions. The math does not exist. If the body were purely kinetic, then we ought to have a slew of math for that too. The math does not exist. In fact, there is no known paper from any source throughout the history of mankind in which the author described an emotion. Without the descriptions, physics, and math of emotions, all claims about emotions are mere imaginations.

Modern Academic Papers on Emotions

While searching online for a topic, I stumbled upon some academic papers about emotions. Dumb curiosity drove me to take a look, just to see if an academician might have sparked a new thought within the past 2,500 years. I normally never critique a living person's writings, but the following two papers are highly useful for their ideas and manners of presentation.

Within "The Nature of Emotions: Fundamental Questions", "Why Emotions are Felt", Gerald Clore (Oxford University Press, ©1994) begins by speaking at length of negative events (violent as well as perverse) which caused negative emotions within survivors. A reader attempting to skip over the paper's own negativity will not have much success (the problem of too much negativity was also within the On Having Whiteness article by Donald Moss). Nevertheless, gleaning a few sentences from the paper is sufficient enough for an illustration of how well academicians and scientists have progressed within their goal of comprehending what emotions are.

"The results showed that subjects' perceptions of the ambiguous person were biased by their prior affective experience. Subjects whose happy thought and feeling had been activated saw him more positively than did subjects entertaining sad thoughts."

"...told one group that they were completely finished with the task (Completed Condition), while he told another group that they would return to the task in a minute (Interrupted Condition). The effect of this instruction was to cause the interrupted group to keep their effective experience on-line, so that it contaminated their subsequent judgment. By contrast, the completed task group was able to mentally punctuate their affective experience so that the prior and subsequent experiences were kept distinct, and the usual contamination of judgment did not occur."

"Already irritated individuals who are frustrated can become furious, and already anxious individuals who are frightened can become panicked. Emotions are believed to make people irrational."

The last sentence created a 'no duh' chuckle for how obviously correct it was. Anyone who does not know that emotions make people irrational, must be living a sheltered life.

The article's statements are agreeable as they apply to the normal person. Normal people are not intellectually centered nor intellectually aware, and thus the normal person's thinking and behavior are subconsciously reactive. The article Normal Humans Have Multiple Separate Minds - Separatus Mentes Alogicus speaks of similar, while also giving a few additional ideas of why most people are unable to process logic between what is seen and what is felt. The following is the Why Emotions are Felt paper's summary.

Emotional organisms are information-processing organisms. Emotions emerge from information processing and feed information back into the same system. Sources of emotions are the continual appraisals that take place as the organism moves through its world. The output of emotions is information conveyed by distinctive thoughts, feelings, and expressions. This experiential output serves as input to moment-to-moment judgment and decision making (Cloe, 1992; Schwarz, 1990). It informs the individual about the results of unconscious computations concerning the significance of events for one's concerns. Thus informed, the individual can then allocate resources appropriately (Simon, 1967).

With a big grin, the paper's conclusions are valid, but, the reader begs to ask: if the paper knew that negativity would negatively influence the reader, then why did the paper begin with such strong negativity? Ah, but that is the norm for we bipods; we claim one thing, but we turn around and do another (separatus mentes). As a result, the paper was judged negatively, regardless of the fact that its information appeared to be reasonably valid.

Too, if science and academia are aware of how negative emotions negatively influence people (and they have known for over a hundred years), then why has there not been any known push from academia and science to promote positive emotions in society? Why has there not been so much as a single good thought come from science?

As the article The World's Smartest Man on Earth, Might Be You : Part 1 points-out, "You might be smarter than what you assume if your behavior matches your beliefs".

As a final comment on Why Emotions are Felt, the summary's ideas are valid, but, all living beings are "emotional organisms". As has been frequently repeated on this website, words are emotionally spoken, emotionally received, emotionally interpreted, emotionally stored, and emotionally responded to. All animals do the same. All languages are based upon the same. It is obvious everywhere throughout the world. It is also obvious to little infants. However, since the paper's claims are so obvious, then the reader is further compelled to ask: why was the paper written? Do academicians truly not know anything about emotions? Unfortunately, the answer is 'yes'.

Stepping Into The Science of Emotions

Brief Background of the Topic of Emotions

Within the ~3,000 years of recorded history, literally no known publicly-available writing has ever spoken about the nature of emotions. Regardless of language, whether it be English, Greek, Latin, Italian, or Chinese, and regardless of whether the association be of religion, philosophy, or science, never has any known author spoken of the nature of emotions. Of one individual, having searched for over 42 years to find a mention about the nature of emotions, and yet never finding a record, it is substantial evidence that the knowledge of emotions is rare.

A person's knowledge and intelligence is not found within what the people say and do, but rather it is found in what they cannot say and cannot do. Researching a topic is most productive when looking for specific topics that have specific wording, and if the wording does not exist throughout the written history of mankind, then it is clear that mankind does not have knowledge of the topic. Furthering the research is to inspect other forms of evidence. One form of evidence is to look at paintings. If never in the known history of the world has any man painted a painting about a specific topic, then again it is reasonable to assume that mankind does not know of the topic. The above painting by Charles Allston Collins is one of the very few known paintings that illustrate a heart-felt emotion. When searching for a painting about love, none were found aside from a few with titles about 'reading a love letter' or such, but the painted topics did not so much as relate to the topic of love. There were, of course, countless paintings of rage, hate, violence, greed, selfishness, lust, and on and on, but literally nothing about love.

There are numerous topics that have never been written of, sculpted, painted, nor had music created for. The evidence speaks clearly that most people do not know what emotions are, and, most people only have negative emotions.

All Skills Require Firsthand Experience

No one can be an expert race car driver if they have never driven a race car in a professional car race, and won. The same applies for plumbing, electrical, carpentry, cooking, tailoring, gardening, farming, ranching, computer coding, music, and all other skills. All skills require lengthy firsthand experience. Reading a book and memorizing words does not make a person an expert race car driver, nor a symphony violinist, nor does it make the person an expert of anything whatsoever.

Example: For a reported twenty years a corporation only hired degreed college graduates to service the corporation's machinery. None of the degreed employees were able to maintain the machinery's electronics. The corporation was rapidly losing money and had to have their product produced at another location over a hundred miles away. When hiring a new employee who had experience but did not have a college degree, the machinery's electronics were corrected within about eighty hours total service time, and the machinery also ran better, faster, smoother, and more dependably than when the machinery was first purchased. College degrees are meaningless. Academic papers are meaningless. Firsthand skill is the one and only measure of qualification for all topics.

No one is able to know how emotions arise, nor what specific emotions are, unless the person has firsthand experienced the emotions, while also giving prolonged conscious analyses of what each emotion is. A fair estimate of the time required to become skilled with a common topic is about 10,000 hours. To become skilled with the topic of self-observation requires that the observations have continued throughout all of one's life. Self-observations make use of memories, and if no memories exist of previous self-observations, then today's self-observations cannot produce a cognition of what is being observed.

Academicians and scientists believe that reading books and memorizing words are what make the academicians and scientists experts of topics that the individuals themselves have never done firsthand, nor know anything about. The academicians and scientists claim that with zero hours of firsthand experience, and with zero hours of self-observation, they are able to supernaturally know everything about the human mind and body.

The behavior of academicians and scientists is contradictory and absurd, as are the academicians' and scientists' claims of their knowing what emotions are.

Expertise Versus Inexperience

It is okay for a person to not know something, but it is not okay for the person to claim to be an expert of what they do not know.

I myself am skilled with electronics, soldering, residential and industrial plumbing, residential and industrial electrical, medical equipment manufacturing, mechanics, and quite a few others, but my skills of building wooden furniture are weak (the furniture is sturdy and it looks good, but my method of assembly is definitely not artisan), my favored cooking is not what most people have a taste for (I do not have to buy charcoal supplements), and my gardening is successful in spite of my not so much as knowing each vegetable's root patterns. I do not claim to be an expert cook, nor an expert gardener, nor an expert furniture maker.

If you do not know something, then that is okay, just do not claim to know about the thing that you do not know anything about.

Academicians and scientists, however, have no skills within physics, nor are the academicians and scientists able to so much as to describe a single sine wave of physics, and yet the academicians and scientists claim that they alone are the experts of physics. The human body exists and functions within the laws of physics (the laws of Nature). Academicians and scientists claim that they know everything about everything about the mind and body, and yet no known academician nor scientist is able to pass a simple 4th grade math test as the math applies to physics and the human body. You yourself can take what was memorized of 4th grade math, extrapolate it to include human life, and within seconds know that everything that academicians and scientists have claimed about the body and mind is false. I would give an example, but that would not be any fun for people who enjoy the act of thinking.

Hilarious but true: Harvard students that cannot pass a 5th Grade Literacy Test, the failure of MIT graduates to make light from a battery, wire, and a light bulb, and no known academician nor scientist exhibits 4th grade math competency.

All competent electronic technicians know that all electrical behavior can be illustrated with a schematic, as well as being capable of being measured with electrical mathematics. Where is the schematic and math for the human body and mind? There is none. Seriously, there is none, absolutely literally vacant, and yet academicians and scientists continue to insist that the human mind and body function electrically. Skilled professionals in electronics, electrical physics, and computer repair (or even 4th grade math) are able to instantly know that academicians and scientists know nothing useful about the body and mind.

(There are numerous methods of illustrating hugely-extremely-extraordinarily-obvious physics (along with schematics and maths) that prove that all academic and scientific claims of the mind and body are false, but again, listing them would not be any fun for the people who enjoy figuring things out on their own.)

Unfortunately, academicians and scientists also claim to know everything about emotions, and yet never once in the known history of mankind has any academician or scientist ever described or exhibited evidence of knowing what emotions are. The following are very brief samplings of the pseudoscience and nescience within academia, science, and all other ideologies.

Even The Enlightened Masters Did Not Know What Emotions Are

One of the countless examples of historical 'experts' not knowing what emotions are, is recorded in 道明 Tao Enlightenment Part Two #24: ""...replied Tzu Ch'i... Joy and anger, sorrow and happiness, caution and remorse, come upon us by turns, with ever-changing mood. They come like music from hollowness, like mushrooms from damp. Daily and nightly they alternate within us, but we cannot tell whence they spring. Can we then hope in a moment to lay our finger upon their very cause? But for these emotions, I should not be. But for me, they would have no scope. So far we can go; but we do not know what it is that brings them into play. ’Twould seem to be a soul; but the clue to its existence is wanting. That such a power operates is credible enough, though we cannot see its form. It has functions without form." A quick and anxious rush to look at the original Chinese text resulted in a similar concept as Giles': 'preceding similar cannot know it location sprout'. And there, major fail... end of story... no excuses... no second-chances... the words put a full and permanent end to all things allegedly said of Tzu Ch'i. Any individual who cannot observe and intimately describe their own thoughts, senses, emotions, and body, that individual cannot possibly be 'enlightened', and, all that the individual believes must therefore be imaginary and false."

There are a tiny number of ancient Chinese writings that appear to hint at a few variables of emotions, but none spoke of emotions within a phrasing that suggested a knowledge of what emotions are.

Science's Highest Does Not Know

Observe what Albert Einstein said about emotions in Einstein's Cosmic Religion Review: "In primitive peoples it is, first of all, fear that awakens religious ideas… religion of fear…". In Einstein's Ideas and Opinions Review it is quoted: "The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds — it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity..."

Not only did Albert Einstein invent wildly amental claims, his statements were of an almost continuous string of logical fallacies, contradictions, intense ignorance of the topics he spoke of, plus a complete ignorance of what the mind and emotions are. Albert Einstein's statement "The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious" permanently proved that he knew nothing of physics, and especially knew nothing about biology and emotions. Within his own words, Albert Einstein repeatedly exhibited no evidence of having competency with 4th grade math, nor even a sophomore knowledge of electrical theory. Memorizing math formulas does not infer that the individual is skilled with the mental ability to apply what the mathematical formulas suggest.

Over twenty years ago I publicly wrote about one of the things that spawn religions and emotions. If Oxford biologists truly had knowledge of the human body as they claim, then the Oxford biologists would already know what emotions are, and what emotions do. The Oxford biologists do not know.

Name any famous name: that individual could not describe any emotion.

Modern Science, Sadism, and the Emotion of Fear

If an individual does not know what a thing is, then the person cannot describe what the unknown thing is. Nevertheless, modern scientists and academicians are claiming to know what 'fear' is (as did Albert Einstein and all other self-alleged 'experts'). The scientists purposefully torture, maim, and psychologically brutalize little animals, and then the scientists claim that they discovered specific brain regions that control the sense of fear. The first fact is that literally none of the scientists know what any emotion is, including fear, and the second fact is that it is absurd for a scientist to claim that a mutilated little animal is experiencing fear if the scientist himself does not know what fear is.

Scientists have claimed that when a tortured animal "freezes", then the animal is experiencing fear. Quoted from Optogenetic stimulation of a hippocampal engram activates fear memory recall (Xu Liu, Steve Ramirez, Petti T. Pang, Corey B. Puryear, Arvind Govindarajan, Karl Deisseroth, and Susumu Tonegawa, Copyright©2012): "Here we show in mice that optogenetic reactivation of hippocampal neurons activated during fear conditioning is sufficient to induce freezing behaviour."

There is no evidence nor proof that the mice were experiencing fear. Describe what fear is. The scientists could not describe what fear is. The scientists invented false claims.

Without the verifiable measures, plus a knowledge of what emotions are, an observer cannot discern whether a 'freeze' is caused by fear, apprehension, curiosity, confusion, awe, a 'brain-burp', a hyperphantasic hallucination of a beautiful mouse, or even a 'zen moment'. Cats commonly 'freeze' while giving close attention to what they are seeing, hearing, and/or smelling, but the 'freezing' is not fear.

A computer operating system can have a specific line of code removed, which will cause the computer to freeze when the user attempts to run the code. Windows® ME froze often too: definitely not because of fear. Similarly, sadistically destroying a segment of a mouse's brain (removing 'a line of code') might cause a freeze during specific moments, but the "freezing" does not mandate "fear".

Science is supposed to be about firsthand observations and verifiable evidence. The Optogenetic stimulation paper had zero evidence, zero firsthand observation (scientists cannot supernaturally read the minds of mice), and the procedures were not scientific, nor so much as rational.

The Optogenetic stimulation paper is satiated with descriptions of how the scientists knowingly and purposefully tortured, mutilated, toxified, and were horribly cruel to little mice. The scientists were so proud of their Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism that the scientists actually wrote a paper about it. The paper is real. The PDF is available online for reading.

Numerous other academicians and scientists are also now claiming that they know what fear is because they could torture animals into "freezing".

Machiavellianism, Sadism, and Double Standards

Of all the different descriptions of Machiavellianism, they all sum similarly: Machiavellianism is the behavior of people committing all acts of violence, hate, and lies for the purpose of selfish gain. Machiavellianism is deemed to be a mental defect. 100% of all scientists behave with Machiavellianism. If a person were not a Machiavellianistic sadist, then they would leave organized science and never look back.

Laws exist that prohibit sadist people from torturing and killing little animals, but science is exempt from the laws. Scientists are legally permitted to torture, maim, terrorize, and cruelly kill any living being. Everyone who condones science's acts of cruelty is an accomplice and separatus mentes alogicus.

Claims of Knowing What is Unknown

Academicians admit in books and videos that they do not know what (si) means, but still the academicians claim that it means 'think'. The academicians cannot rationalize what means because the word relies upon the mental ability to assemble concepts, of which academicians cannot do. The definition also relies upon the firsthand experience of performing the manner of 'thinking' of which the word implies, which is a thing that academicians have never done and never will be able to do.

By the same inability to rationalize the meaning of , so is the inability to reason what an emotion is.

Again, academicians and scientists do not know what is, academicians and scientists have never explained what an emotion is, and academicians and scientists do not know what emotions are, but still academicians and scientists claim to know things that they do not know and cannot explain.

Within the 1974 issue of American Psychologist (also spoken of in Prodigy Myths Autism and History), John Watson claimed "that there were three basic emotions present at birth — fear, rage, and love — that were called out by specific but limited stimuli." The absurd claim was, of course, an obvious lie formed within an utter absence of a knowledge of psychology itself. But, of course, Watson's claim was approved for publication by the APA, and, the claim is par for all of academia and science.

The Balances

An interesting observation from within the seven year positive emotions research was that the components of the method rely upon the participant's own preexisting mental potentials. If an individual does not possess the mental potential (as partially pointed to in Separatus Mentes Alogicus), then the individual is mentally incapable of experiencing a positive emotion.

All known academic, western philosophical, and scientific lists of emotions are negative except for a few mentions of neutral (callous) emotions. Never do the lists include positive emotions. The utter absence of positive emotions within science, western philosophy, and academia, is solid evidence that the positive emotions do not occur within the individuals. The evidence also strongly supports the genre of canatim sapientes.

Numerous ancient Chinese words point at positive emotions. No known western academician nor philosopher has ever translated the Chinese words within a positive meaning. The mental inability to know what an emotional word implies, proves that the translator has not himself had a similar positive emotion. The evidence of the academicians' failure is huge, with hundreds of thousands of examples.

What goes in, comes out. People who begin with thinking minds, are able to achieve creatively positive emotions. People who begin with selfish minds, they will live the rest of their lives within their own growing negativity, and not know it.


Within the topic of emotions, there never has been and never will be a scientist who knows what emotions are. The ability to comprehend emotions requires coherent intelligence, self-observation, and firsthand skills, which are things that academicians and scientists never have had and never will have.

Some phantasia projects have also falsely spoken of "fear". The article Aphantasia and the Alleged Lack of Fear and Other Emotions briefly touches on the topic.

Whensoever a person sees an academic or science paper about fear, observe that the authors do not know what fear is, the authors cannot describe what fear is, the authors are ignorant of physics, the authors are ignorant of biology, the authors' claims are pathological science, and the authors thump their religious books of science while not admitting that their alogicus science is based upon the mental disorders of Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism.

Numerous other articles on this site contain information about emotions, including Pathological Science Emotions #4, March for Science Climate Change #13, Aphantasia and the Alleged Lack of Fear and Other Emotions, and Laughing At Science - Brain Chemicals Cause Emotions

Related articles are in the Pathological Science and Intelligence sections.