Social Psychologist & Personal Advisor

The Emotional Self
by Matt Moody, Ph.D. 

Human beings are emotional beings by virtue of having physical bodies that adapt levels of arousal to meet situational demands; human beings are emotional beings by virtue of having bodily arousal augment and impact perception and action in the moment.

Because the Self is inherently emotional, you must correctly conceive the meaning of "emotion" to understand the Animal that You Are. This is not an easy task for two reasons: First, emotion is a multi-faceted phenomenon to which people pick out and emphasize certain aspects to the exclusion of others, and thus fail to perceive the whole. Second, the nature of language obscures clear communication; the very words we use to explain emotion also imply erroneous conceptions of its whole reality. Because emotion is multi-faceted, and because of the inherent weakness of words, there are dozens of diverging definitions of emotion:

           * Explicit definitions found in the writings of science,
                      encyclopedias, and dictionaries;
           * Implicit definitions suggested in literature and media;.
           * Assumptive definitions held in the heads of humans, and in turn,.
                      conveyed and reinforced in everyday dialogue.

Practically speaking, emotion is understood by the way people talk about it. Common folk come to understand the meaning of emotion by social osmosis: Definitions seep into consciousness one conversation at a time; and most often, emotion is mis-defined and misconceived by the implications of common conversation.

Understanding Emotion through the Weakness of Words. Besides the raw recycling of erroneous ideas through everyday dialogue, the meaning of emotion is distorted due to the limitations of language. Paradoxically, the very words we use to describe emotion . . . are the same words that distort it. As we have learned previously, words are general and categorical, while the realities to which words point are particular and specific (see page 76).

The function of Word-Symbols is to describe or point
to the Objects and Activities of Reality; while words do
constrain interpretive meaning to fewer possibilities,
still words are never Accurate; instead,
they are ever Approximate.

This is especially true when it comes to describing behavioral activity that is in perpetual motion. The living reality of e-motion is . . . ever-in-motion, and trying to find just the right words to precisely define it is futile; there are no precise and accurate definitions, . . . only adequate descriptions. Thus, in shaping realistic descriptions of emotion, we cannot arrive at accuracy, . . . we can only approach adequacy.

Adequacy is accomplished as words sufficiently characterize real-world actions or objects. An adequate definition of emotion will describe emotion as it occurs in directly-lived experience. All adequate definitions eventually "land" on the solid ground of tangible reality, as opposed to "hover" in the abstract air of mental constructs and intangible rhetoric. In defining the word "emotion" we are not simply trying to replace one word . . . for fifteen other words; instead, we are trying to use words to describe a practical visualizing of actual emotional moments. While the word "emotion" does represent one category, . . . it does not represent one thing or one activity; rather, it is a word that points to many billions of emotional moments enacted by billions of particular people.

For this reason, speaking of emotion in a general sense apart from a specific human context tends to mislead, again, it is in the real world that all definitions find an adequate end. In defining emotion, we must make sure to shape our words around reality, rather than bending and contorting reality to fit words and definitions. S. I. Hayakawa speaks to the pervasive problem of letting rhetoric used to represent reality, cloud our view of reality:

Words, and whatever words may suggest, are not the things they stand for, . . .
education that fails to emphasize this fact is more than likely to leave students imprisoned and victimized by their linguistic conditioning, rather than enlightened and liberated by it.

Expecting that the reality of emotion should parallel the implications of a word, is to conceive the world exactly backwards. Whatever the descriptive character we assign to the word emotion, . . . we need to let the living activity of being-emotional BE what ever it IS. In every effort to understand the meaning of words, we are trying to describe tangible, touchable reality and to wrap our words around reality, rather than vice versa. Hyperventilating in the abstract air of ideas, and being seduced by the erroneous implications of words, is precisely the kind of linguistic lovemaking that has given illegitimate birth to the illusory phantasm of metaphysical essence.5 The mirage of metaphysical imaginings is born whenever noun-words that really represent verb-activity are reified into things existing independent from the beings that conceive them.

Noun-Words that represent Verb-Activity. Because "emotion" is a noun-word, it is natural to think of it, and talk of it as if "emotion" were a tangible thing, like a rock or a chair. In a typical way of talking, notice how language constrains us to think of emotion as an "it." And when talked about as if "it" . . . were an "it," mental conceptions of emotion naturally gravitate to a thing-ish state. Our cultural way of talking constrains us to misunderstand emotion (not to mention numerous other notions), therefore, to perceive emotional reality for what it IS, we must frequently translate noun-words that really represent action-phenomena from entity . . . to activity.

Consistently making such translations is a subtle mind maneuver that requires a paradigm shift: You literally have to de-construct decades of cultural socialization. But once you've made the "shift," you will begin to notice (like a bride wearing a purple plaid wedding dress) how people routinely talk about and conceive emotion as if "it," were an "it." This conceptual error explains why many imagine that emotion operates independent from personal responsibility, and therefore assumes that emotional reactions are "caused" by other people's provocations.

It is routine for a person-being-emotional to blame others for the emergence of unwanted emotion with explanations like: "I didn't want to feel angry and I didn't consciously choose to be angry, so it must be your fault, because of your offensiveness." Blaming others, for what comes out of you, is implied by the common outburst: "You made me mad!" This fallacious conclusion is clarified by The Division of Response-Ability principle (see page 17).

Mis-understanding emotion is further reinforced by the way words are traditionally structured within sentences: Generally, nouns function as the subject of a sentence; hence any verb associated with the subject of "emotion" will imply that "it" is doing the action inferred by the verb. By believing the erroneous implications of words, people regularly reify emotion into a "thing" with independent power, as implied in such outbursts as, "I was overwhelmed by emotion!" or "My emotions got the best of me!"

Misconceptions of emotion are spawned and spread
whenever the word "emotion" is the subject or direct object
of a sentence. The reality to which the word "emotion" points
is not an object, or metaphysical entity, it IS living activity.
Emotion is a word to represent People-Being-Emotional.

Science-speak talks as if there is an actual “relationship” between variables; this way of talking implies that an “interaction” is occurring between scientific factors; thus, “Self-Esteem” is granted a thing-like existence, where “it” interacts with “Depression.” This so-called relationship is no more real than the Easter Bunny doing lunch with Santa Claus—while the scientific conceptualizing is real, the literal relationship between variables is not.

The truth is that Self-Esteem, as a scientific variable, has only a general existence in a person’s mind as an idea/construct/category. * Imagining that variables and factors exist as real entities that “interact” is an illusion sired by the implications of science-speak. The real referent to which the Self-Esteem variable points, is this: A particular person esteeming himself or herself in the moment. The directly-lived reality of “Self-Esteem” IS . . . the specific activity of evaluating oneself in the very moment of self-evaluation—to include positive or negative sentiment held by the self-evaluator. Similarly, the scientific variable of “Depression” points to . . . a particular person-being-depressed.

Disappearing the science-speak illusion involves continual translation from scientific terms, into specific realities; for instance, the Depression variable represents a category of consistent patterns manifest among multiple persons-being-depressed, and the Self-Esteem variable represents the consistent patterns among multiple persons-esteeming-self. Here’s an important point: The reality to which the word “emotion” points is always specific, and manifests in particular living moments as a person-being-emotional.

General Conceptions create a perceptual mirage
that hovers over a specific tangible reality:
there is no-thing that exists generally
Reality always exists specifically.

Undoubtedly influenced by the ingrained traditions of science-speak, our cultural way of talking creates and reinforces numerous misconceptions; for example, the way we talk about love demonstrates of how reality is distorted by the implications of words. “Love” is commonly conceived and talked about as a force or power; people speak of the “power of love” and the obvious implication is that power resides directly IN this “crazy little thing called love.”

The truth is that love only comes into existence as people “do” it and “be” it. Yet there IS a power of influence that occurs as people-are-loving, but that power manifest through the activity of being-loving—not IN “love” as an entity or essence existing apart from people-being-loving. The same is true of God’s Love: Power resides IN God and does not reside directly IN a “Love” that exists apart from God. The metaphor “God is Love” means that the Being-of-God is fully and wholly Loving in every expression towards His creations—particularly His children. The poetic phrase, “God is Love” translates to the simple reality of . . . God-Being-Loving.

Another similar misconception occurs with the word faith—a word that is regularly reified into an independent existence where “it” possesses portable power. Due to the implications of a way of talking about faith phenomena, the commonly coined phrase “power of faith,” leads people to erroneously imagine that there is power directly IN an entity-essence called “faith.” Contrastingly, the correct conception is thus: faith is a word that points to people-being-faithful, and in turn, that faithfulness invokes the Creator’s Power to bless and empower faithful-activity according to His promises. Just as with the instance of a person-being-loving, there is also a power of influence that occurs through faithful activity—more specifically a person-being-faithful.

While praying in Gethsemane, Jesus spoke these words to his Father, “Thine is the power.” The phrase “Thine is the power” is a literal description of reality, whereas the phrase “power of faith” is a poetic metaphor. To correctly conceive living reality, we must perpetually discern between metaphorical descriptions and literal descriptions; we must perpetually rescue reality from the abstract abyss of rhetoric.

The nature of language presents many more obstacles to correctly conceiving emotion than most people realize. The following summarizes impediments to understanding emotion due to the inherent limitations of language:

Even though the structure of our language often suggests otherwise, emotion is not an entity that has power to do or occur or be; instead, it is people who do and occur and be. When emotion is correctly conceived, people are the subject and substance of an emotional moment. The reality to which the word "emotion" points is not an object, or metaphysical entity, . . . it IS living activity. Emotion is a word to represent people-being-emotional.

The truth is that "emotion" is just one of many noun-words that really represents verb-activity. But, so I don't sound like a person from another planet (more than I already do), I am guilty of premeditated use of noun-words that really represent verb-activity. Here are some of the words that come in this category: Emotion, mind, concept, idea, integrity, memory, world, faith, freedom, love, and heart (the metaphor, not the organ). These words, among others, represent verb-activity6 that humans "do" and "be," within a world context, yet we talk about them in the noun-form. While we must necessarily use our given language to effectively function in society, we need not be sucked in by the swirling vortex of erroneous implications created by words.

More Distortions due to A Way of Talking. Correctly conceiving emotion (and other aspects of the world in general) is further deterred by the pervasive influence of what I call "science-speak." Within typical scientific discourse there is a way of talking that tends to reify factors and variables into "things" possessing causal power. For example, consider the seeming innocuous implications of a typical science-speak assertion: "Depression is negatively correlated to High Self-Esteem." This statement appears harmless enough, but the eventual implications of this type of science-speak assertion absolutely reinforces an erroneous image of reality.

Science-speak talks as if there is an actual "relationship" between variables. This way of talking implies that an "interaction" is occurring between scientific factors. Thus, "Self-Esteem" is granted a thing-like existence, where "it" interacts with "Depression." This so-called relationship is no more real than the Easter Bunny doing lunch with Santa Claus.

The truth is that Self-Esteem, as a scientific variable, only has a general existence in a person's mind as a construct/category/idea. To imagine that variables and factors exist as real entities that "interact" is an illusion sired by the implications of science-speak. The "thing-in-action," or tangible referent, to which the Self-Esteem variable points is this: A particular person esteeming himself or herself in the moment. The directly-lived reality of "Self-Esteem" IS the specific activity of evaluating oneself in the very moment of self-evaluation--to include the positive or negative sentiment. Similarly, the "Depression" variable points to a particular person-being-depressed.

To disappear the science-speak illusion, translation from scientific terms into specific realties must take place. For example, the Depression variable represents a consistent category of patterns manifest among multiple persons-being-depressed, and the Self-Esteem variable represents the congruent patterns among multiple persons-esteeming-self. But here's the important point to remember: The general conception is a descriptive mirage that hovers over a specific tangible reality, for there is no-thing that exists generally, . . . reality always exists specifically. Thus, the reality to which the word "emotion" points is ultimately and always specific, and manifests in particular living moments as a person-being-emotional.

Undoubtedly influenced by the intensely ingrained traditions of science-speak, our cultural way of talking creates and reinforces numerous misconceptions. For example, the way we talk about love demonstrates of how reality is distorted by the implications of words. "Love" is commonly conceived and talked about as a force or power. People speak of the "power of love," and the obvious implication is that power resides directly IN this "crazy little thing called love."

The truth is that love only comes into existence, as people "do" it, and "be" it. Yet, there IS a power of influence that occurs as people-are-loving, but that power manifest through the activity of being-loving, and not IN "love" as an entity or essence existing apart from people-being-loving. The same is true of God's Love. Power resides IN God and does not reside directly IN a "Love" that exists apart from God. The metaphor "God is Love" means that the Being-of-God is fully and wholly Loving in every expression towards his creations, and especially his children. The poetic phrase, "God is Love," translates to the simple reality of God-Being-Loving.

Another similar misconception occurs with the word faith; a word which is regularly reified into an independent existence where "it" possesses portable power. Due to the implications of a way of talking about faith phenomena, the commonly coined phrase, "power of faith," leads people to erroneously imagine that there is power directly IN the entity-essence of "faith." Contrastingly, the correct conception is thus: Faith is a word that points to people-being-faithful, and in turn, that faithfulness invokes the Creator's Power to bless and empower faithful-activity, according to His promises. Just as with the instance of a person-being-loving, there is also a power of influence that occurs through faithful activity, . . . more specifically a person-being-faithful.

While praying in Gethsemane, Jesus spoke these words to his Father, "Thine is the power." The phrase "thine is the power" is a literal description of reality, whereas the phrase "power of faith" is a poetic metaphor. To correctly conceive living reality, we must perpetually discern between metaphorical descriptions and literal descriptions; we must perpetually rescue reality from the abstract abyss of rhetoric.

The nature of language presents more obstacles to correctly conceiving emotion than most people realize. The following summarizes impediments to understanding emotion due to the inherent limitations of language:

       Because emotion is a noun-word that really represents verb-activity, clouded conceptions
       occur by failing to discern between word-ideas that represent action and being
       versus word-ideas that point to object and thing.

       Failure to distinguish the difference between representation & referent, symbol & substance,
       which leads to reifying the mirage of metaphysical entity/essence, and thus,
       emotion can become a thing capable of "doing it to us,"
       instead of something "we are doing and being."

       Getting stuck in a general/abstract realm of mental constructs
       by unwittingly granting words and rhetoric greater importance than
       the substantial living realities for which these symbols stand.

       Accepting the illusion that separate words necessarily represent separate realities
       (an idea to be explained later, page 2-35).

Nominalization: Reducing Active Realities to a Single Noun Word. In his book about writing pithy, pragmatic, and poetic prose, Joseph M. Williams a writing tendency he calls "nominalization." Here's how he describes this process:

"If our readers thing that we have written in ways that seem complex, impersonal, or abstract, we have almost certainly used to many abstract nouns, particularly nouns derived from verbs -- nouns typically ending in -tion, -ment, -ence, and so on. Such nouns have a technical name: NOMINALIZATIONS."

"The word illustrates its own meaning: When we nomimalize the verb nominalize, we create the nominalization . . . nominalization."

* * * * *

Verb  -->  Nominalization  -->  Reality being described  -->  Longer Description of a particular Reality

discover  -->  discovery    REALITY  =  You discover something new, a new idea or a new place, etc.
resist  -->  resistance      REALITY  =  You resist something you don't want to believe or do.
react  -->  reaction       REALITY  =  You react to something that startles or surprises you.

* * * * *

Williams continues: "We can also nominalize a verb by adding -ing (making it a GERUND)."

"The frequent use of nominalizations instead of verbs results in the frustration of reader expectations. Their expectation is of the appearance of characters as subjects and their actions as verbs. Increased frustration results from dropping characters from sentences altogether."

For example, here's what happens when you nominalize the story of Little Red Riding Hood:

                                  "Once upon a time, a walking through the woods occurred,
                                    when a jump out from behind a tree caused surprise."

Here's the moral to the story: The most adequate description of REALITY happens as we portray People thinking, saying, doing, and being within the Context of tangible, touchable Earth Life. This is precisely why "stories" of real events are most captivating -- as opposed to abstract talk about concepts and ideas.

The REALITY of a Person Being Faithful in a particular moment in time, within a specific context, this whole REALITY -- which takes many words, sentences, and paragraphs to adequately describe -- is, for the sake of linguistic convenience, reduced to a NOMINALIZATION, reduced to one noun-word . . . Faith. And this is just one example, among others, of how our language inherently reduces and obscures the very Realities we intent to describe as we use language.

Making a Mammoth Paradigm Shift. To avoid being fooled by the false implications of words, a paradigm shift in the way we conceive our world is in order; a shift requiring frequent translations from the fallacious inferences of a way of talking. If we fail to get completely clear about this “shift,” our cultural way of talking will continue to blur the distinction between symbol and substance . . . and confuse the difference between object and activity.

Our failure to grasp this superior paradigm will lead to the continued tendency of reifying words into entities: where ideas, represented by words, take up space in a metaphysical realm and exist apart from the human beings that "think" them.

This major paradigm shift involves swimming against the constant current of erroneous assumptions that saturate behavioral science generally, and therapeutic approaches specifically: The idea that "thoughts are things" is one such notorious notion; a false assumption likely spawned by the thinking of Plato/Socrates, where consistent and perfect “forms” are more fundamental than the so-called “shadows on the cave wall”—or what we see empirically.

This means metaphysical imaginings become more important and primary than directly-lived reality, with this logic: mortality is imperfect and corruptible, but ideas are flawless and eternal.

From the quest to discover the perfection of “the forms” comes the reifying of “factors” and “variables” and “constructs” that are sometimes granted an eternal existence commensurate to the Creator—or worse, in place of the Creator. Thus metaphysics gone wild becomes philosophical idol worship, as people are persuaded to put their faith in (for instance) the perfect essence of freedom—instead of the power of the Creator to make us free.

To get a firm grip on WHAT IS, we must persistently ask pragmatic questions of every word: What is the reality to which this symbol is pointing? What does this Word “look like” in the World ? The answers to these practical questions will invariably “land” upon the solid ground of earth within two categories: Objects and Actions. This particular paradigm is not just a rhetorical re-arranging of words—it is not merely a word game—rather, what I am describing represents an enormous shift. A perspective that stands upon this premise: Reality is manifest by or through substance . . . or it is not manifest—it does not exist.

Everything that IS REAL is either
a Thing or a Thing-in-Action, and every
Thing or Thing-in-Action always involves
“the substance of things,”
else it IS no-thing!

The shift boils down to the constant translation of essence-talk to tangible-talk—or at least tangible conceiving! You may be saying, “I thought you just explained how emotion is NOT like a rock or a chair . . . yet you want me to visualize all reality in terms of the tangible?” Yes, that is what I want you to do! And you may be further protesting, “but emotion is non-tangible energy that I cannot actually touch, for how does one touch jealousy?” This is precisely where the paradigm shift is needed. True, you cannot touch Jealousy as long as you imagine and assume that Jealousy is intangible energy—but you CAN DIRECTLY TOUCH the tangible substance of a Person-Being-Jealous.

When correctly conceived, Jealousy and all other emotional flavors must be translated from the subject of a sentence (noun) . . . to the activity that a living-subject is doing (verb). People ARE the subjects that make the verb come alive; they are the “living-substance” or “things-in-action” by which emotion is manifest.
Here is an analogy that can clarify: Visualize the meaning of the word “swim.” This word refers to an activity that is done; an activity that comes into existence as people or animals do it. Even though I use the pronoun “it” to refer to “swim,” . . . obviously, the activity of a body moving itself through water is not an “it”—not a “thing.” When conceiving the verb-activity represented by the sometimes-noun-word “swim,” it is empirically clear that “swim” does not have an actual existence apart from the animal that is doing it.

Since “swim” is an activity that is done, . . . the word “swim-ing” more adequately captures the in-motion nature of this water activity. Different from swim-ing, “emotion” is more than outward physical choreography; it also includes inward motions of body physiology—motions that augment perceiving and behaving in particular emotional moments. Like “swim,” the word “anger” is a noun-word that really points to verb-activity; this explains why William Glasser suggested that the word “angering” is a better symbol for acts of “anger,” because the noun-word “anger” really represents a person-being-angry or a person-doing-angry. The word angering more adequately captures something that is "being done" and thus infers that people are doing it—now for the good news:

Since Emotion is
an Activity that You Do,
then You are Response-Able,
and because You are Response-Able,
You possess the prerogative to invoke solutions
to Un-Do what you are Doing; otherwise, you empower
an imaginary Anger-Entity to control you!

With a correct conception of emotion, you are better empowered . . . to retain your power, instead of giving it away to an illusory entity/energy/essence that is assumed to exist apart from you—the mendacious mental machination of metaphysical essence.

To avoid drifting off into the abstract air of “symbols” and land on solid ground of “substance,” it is essential to remember that the map is NOT the territory . . . and the word is NOT the world. It is curious to note that one of the ironic outcome of formal education is confusing rhetoric with reality; to think that a word IS its definition, rather than a representation of the real, is a tendency reinforced by traditions of schooling. By implication, when a word (or group of words) is the “answer” on a myriad of academic tests, then answers can become the conceptual ending point.

By assuming that answers are “the pot of Gold at the end of the rainbow,” students get stuck in an orientation of answers which in turn leads to the conceptual habit of hovering in the abstract air of “rhetoric,” instead of landing on the solid ground of “reality.” When multiple-choice-fill-in-the-blank education eventually culminates in graduation, some students are left with answers . . . instead of knowledge, they are better equipped to succeed on a game show . . . than in life.

Defining Emotion. To overcome distortions due to the limits of language, we must necessarily use more words/explanations to deconstruct false inferences. This is precisely why short definitions of emotion will inevitably impair an adequate conception of emotion. Consider the problems created by this tidy definition from a prominently published dictionary:

Emotion = "A strong feeling of any kind."

This definition is distressingly inadequate because it simply replaces one word . . . for six; and leaves us needing to define the word "feeling." But as definitions go, replacing one word for another (synonym swapping), or exchanging one word for a group of words, IS how definitions are done. Obviously, exchanging the word "emotion" for the word "feeling" moves us no closer to an adequate visualizing of emotion as it occurs in real life.

Defining "emotion" with the word "feeling" is called a tautology, a circular definition. The tidy tautological practice of synonym swapping is further illustrated by defining the word "salt" with the word "salty." But at least in describing "salt" as "salty" one important thing is accomplished: The word "salty" refers us to the experience of "salt"--which is where all definitions need to land. John Dewey maintained that human experience is the basis of all knowledge. Better said: human experience is the basis of all knowing, for the noun-word "knowledge" really represents the conceptual activity of perceiving and understanding the world.

Again, the best definitions will take people from the unstable air of abstract ideas to the firm ground of tangible realties. Moving from symbolic representations to empirical referent, the "words" we use to communicate . . . need to connect us to the everyday experience of our "world." Along these lines, an applied and practical definition of the word "salt" might be:

"Go to the kitchen, find the white stuff in the shaker,
sprinkle some on your tongue . . . that's salt!"

Similarly, to adequately define emotion, it is best to focus upon the tangible, touchable experience of emotion: Both occurrences of you-being-emotional and others-being-emotional. With this in mind, consider another definition of emotion from a 1903 edition of Webster's Dictionary:

"Excitement of the feelings, whether pleasing or painful;
agitation of mind manifested by some sensible effect of the body."

This hundred-year-old definition identifies only two facets of emotion, . . . Mind and Body. There are actually four facets to what I call Whole Emotion. Which raises yet another reason why conceptual confusion commonly surrounds the meaning of emotion: Because emotion is a multi-faceted phenomenon, people tend to pick out and emphasize a single aspect of emotion, to the exclusion of other aspects. Defining emotion can be like the blind men who tried to "define" an elephant: Each conceived the elephant in terms of the part he was feeling, i.e., big floppy ears, a snake-like trunk, a whale-like torso, tree-trunk-like legs, or a wiggly thin tail. Similarly, when speaking of emotion, people may talk in terms of just the part to which they are privy.

Emotion: A Multi-Faceted Activity. In addition to the emotional aspects of Mind and Body, there is a third aspect of emotion identified in most psychology texts. From his book "Psychology," David G. Myers offers the following three facets that combine to make emotion:

               Conscious Experience:
                        The way we Perceive the emotional moment — Mind

                Physiological Arousal:
                         The way Bodily Feelings augment Perception & Action — Body

                Behavioral Expression:
                         The way we Act in the emotional moment — Behavior

By adding the context of behavior, we move closer to a more complete conception of emotion. The whole emotional experience of you-perceiving-the-world-while-feeling-inward-stirrings always occurs within particular life contexts, and never in a vacuum. What you-are-doing and how you-are-being, simultaneous to your perceiving and feeling, are ever-connected aspects of Whole Emotion. By adding the context of behavior, we move closer to a more complete conception of emotion. The wisdom of including behavior to the conception of whole emotion is obvious: The emotion of anger is notoriously known by its outward behavioral outbursts.

Indeed, an angry person is most often identified as angry directly because of observable behavior. Since the whole-emotional-moment includes what is being-done, all emotional phenomena must necessarily include the realities of expressive behavior--to include outward doings and inward ways of being. What is being done (behavior) occurs in holistic unity with the happenings of heightened physiology (body) and conscious awareness (mind).

Because conscious experience is an ever-moving, living activity, thus "mind" should not be thought of as a thing, but an ongoing activity of perceiving. This explains why John Dewey maintained that a better term to represent activities of conscious awareness, thinking, and perceiving are expressed in the verb-form . . . "minding." With a "verb" mindset as to "emotion" in place, consider this definition of emotion and the directly-lived visualizing it invokes:

Simultaneous to your thinking, saying, doing, & being,
the word "emotion" represents those moments
when heightened bodily arousal augments
and impacts particular life experience.

Whole Emotion. To conceive emotions correctly, it is wise to perceive the whole context within which emotion is manifest. Thus far, three (3) aspects of emotion have been identified, but there are really four (4) aspects that comprise what I call Whole Emotion. To introduce the fourth facet, and make our conception of emotion most adequate, and firmly fixed on the solid ground of reality, consider the words of Candace Pert, from her book "Molecules of Emotion."

                    "Measurement! It is the very foundation of the modern scientific method, the
                    means by which the material world is admitted into existence. Unless we can
                    measure something, science won't concede it exists, which is why science refuses
                    to deal with such "nonthings"as the emotions, the mind, the soul, or the spirit. . . .
                    When I use the term emotion, I am speaking in the broadest of terms, to include
                    not only the familiar human experiences of anger, fear, and sadness, as well as
                    joy, contentment, and courage, but also basic sensations such as pleasure and
                    pain, as well as the "drive states" . . . such as hunger and thirst."

                    "In addition to measurable and observable emotions and states, I also refer to
                    an assortment of other intangible, subjective experiences that are probably
                    unique to humans, such as spiritual inspiration, awe, bliss, and other states
                    of consciousness that we all have experienced but that, up until now, have
                    been physiologically explained."

For those who have never experienced the directly-felt blowing of spiritual wind in this world, manifest as euphoric bliss, inspiration, and awe, . . . they must wonder about the sanity of those who claim regular and sometimes spectacular experiences of spirit. For the skeptic, my explanation of Whole Emotion can be considered a "theory" to be personally proved. The reality of spirit can absolutely be proven to yourself, while this personal proof is not instantly transferable others. Others must directly experience the reality of spirit for themselves.

If the real existence of spirit influence could be
empirically proven to others easily and instantly, then individual Faith
would not be necessary. By Divine Design, expressing
individual faith IS an essential part of
Life's purpose and fulfillment.

For those who hesitate on this view of Whole Emotion, you may be saying, "why can't emotion simply be defined in terms of physiological energy, why can't emotion simply be . . . the inner motions of the body?" It can, . . . if that is the way people prefer to negotiate the word's meaning. However, the very best definitions will always hold up under rational and practical scrutiny, and the fact is that there is NEVER an inner motion of body physiology associated to an everyday emotion that occurs APART from an initiating perception (mind). Further, there is NEVER an instance of physiology (body) associated to an everyday emotion that occurs APART from a living context (behavior), and finally there is NEVER an inner arousal associated to an everyday emotion this manifests apart from one's way of being (spirit).

The holistic view of social interaction absolutely includes the interactions and influence of spirit. The richest meaning of emotion is embedded within this total context; whereas, a narrow conception of emotion as "inner physiology" only tends to tear apart Whole Emotion as it occurs in real life.

Separate Words, but not Separated Realities. The distinctiveness of emotion is manifest in life-moments when conscious awareness (mind) is augmented by heightened physiological arousal (body). Because body arousal occurs in concert with the conscious awareness of mind, thus mind is inseparable from body in occurrences of emotion. Mind and body are two aspects that happen together in one unified reality; they are only "separate" as word-symbols and as ideas that can be talked about separately. The same is true for the inseparable aspects of behavior and spirit; while they are also separate in word and idea, they occur in concert with activities of mind and body to make up Whole Emotion.

Because we can identify and talk about these aspects of emotion separately, Whole Emotion is regularly ripped apart conceptually, and thus talked about in misleading ways. Keeping all descriptive aspects of emotional reality glued together will deliver definitions/descriptions of emotions that are most adequate.

Referring to "Understanding Emotions" (below), a sequential flow of emotion is given: When bodily functions become heightened, that physiological response occurs because a prior perception has set that bodily arousal in motion. If there were no perception to begin with, there will be no heightened physiology to follow, thus no bodily feeling or behavioral expression. While it is possible to conceptually separate the unity of Whole Emotion by a way of talking and its associated way of thinking, the reality of emotion remains as it IS, . . . undivided and whole.

Aspects of Emotion can be "talked about"
separately, but they do not exist separately.
Emotion is expressed in holistic unity:
Spirit, Mind, Body, & Being.

In every act of symbolic reduction--reducing realities to words--there is inevitable distortion. Again, because the words describing each aspect of emotion are separate in symbol and in idea, we can talk about them as if they were separate, which in turn fosters the erroneous inference that these descriptive aspects occur separately--they do not! The living activity called emotion represents a plethora of particular people-being-emotional, enacting emotional-moments in a unified expression of Spirit, Mind, Body, and Being. Directly-lived emotion is always undivided and whole.

The Fountain from which Emotions Flow. The foundational source from which all emotions flow is not spoken of in psychology texts, or in scientific literature generally; that source is "spirit." Spirit is not as mystical as some imagine. It's no more mysterious than the occurrence of "wind." While we don't "see" wind--the substance of which is invisible air in motion—but we do empirically experience the effects of wind all around.

Similarly, phenomena associated to the word "spirit" are as discernible to the senses as "wind." The consequences of spirit influence are readily perceive-able in the mortal realm, yet the direct substance of spirit remains invisible to mortal eyes. Notice, I said, "substance of spirit." Some conceive spirit to be immaterial--without form or matter. But is not so! People who have visited the spirit realm have consistently conveyed an account of "seeing" some-thing, . . . as opposed to no-thing! They viewed a world of substantial things and embodied beings. The spirit realm has been seen and documented by thousands who have died, . . . observed and experienced a "spirit" realm, . . . and then returned back to mortal Life.

To understand why we respond in emotional ways at particular times, it is best to ask a prerequisite question: "Why do you perceive as you do?" The truth is that body physiology follows perception, and the foundational source of all perception is . . . spirit: Both the influence of spirit, and the choices directly associated with that influence. Human beings perceive the world as a function of their "Spiritual Integrity." Covey states "You don't see the world as it is, you see it according to who you are." And Who You Are is most importantly manifest in your Way of Being; thus you will see your world as a function of two opposing responses to Spirit influence:

Be True to your Spirit Intuition of Truth
   OR . . .
Betray those Spirit Intuitions

                       Understanding Emotions

                               Human emotion is experienced and expressed in four aspects:

                       "You do not see the world as it is, you see it according to who you are" - S. Covey

                       "Your way of seeing is inseparable from your way of being" - Matt Moody

                       "It is in the darkness of their eyes that men get lost" - Black Elk

                       "That which you perceive as real, is real in its consequences" - W. I. Thomas

FOR THOSE WHO OWN THE 1ST EDITION OF CHANGING YOUR STRIPES: The preceding excerpt of is a revised version of "The Emotional Self." It contains many new insights that the 1st Edition does not have. Further, there are 4 more sections about "emotion" (and eleven footnotes) that are not included with this online excerpt, that complete Dr Matt's explanation of Emotion. These are the additional sections:

           * Emotion: Life's Exclamation Point
           * Learning the Lessons that Emotions Teach
           * Emotion as Energy-In-Motion
           * Putting Positive Energy-In-Motion

Dr Matt Reminder: A Goal Within Your Control . . . Becoming Loving & True

The Greatest Prize
for Life's labors isn't
in material possessions
or impressive accomplishments,
but in the progress of personal character.
You labor for your own becoming, this is your richest reward.
Who You Become is your greatest possession,
make it your Masterpiece!
(Changing Your Stripes, 2nd Edition, page 274).

The book, "Changing Your Stripes" presents principles for getting out of
the ditch in which you've been dumped (the difficulties of which you are a victim), and
the ditch in which you've jumped (the difficulties for which you volunteer).

"Mastering a challenging situation
is ultimately a matter of
mastering yourself!"
- Matt Moody 

"Changing Your Stripes," teaches you the principles that lead to lasting change,
making you a new kind of creature capable of communicating
with calm, even as storms of contention swirl.

If these ideas resonate and ring true,
then . . . this book is for you!

Sold Exclusively
through this website

Changing Your Stripes is a
unique reference book that will help
you understand, . . . and solve all of
Life's ever-appearing problems.
Here are more reasons to buy
Changing Your Stripes

Social Psychologist & Personal Advisor