Information and Emotion

This essay starts a new series of essays. This new series of essays is meant to compliment my previous series of essays; the "...and Abstraction" essays. Thes new series of essays witch I have designated "...and Emotion" are meant to examine consciousness, like the "... and Abstraction" essays, but from the point of view os emotion and feeling, instead of abstraction. In practical application this switch of point of view means that, instead of examining philosophers and philosophies, this new series shall examine consciousness from the point of view of religion and culture, including pop-culture. In this essay we shall review some of the issues that have already been covered in the "... and Abstraction" essays, but shall also add to the ground already covered, because we are examining from a different point of view. By examining consciousness from a new angle, that of emotion, we shall get a more complete view of consciousness. At least that is the hope. F.H. Bradley made the distinction between content and clarity. To illustrate Bradley's distinction between content and clarity, we shall use the familiar if sometimes baffling example of male-female communication. Women try to invoke emotions to inspire (communicate) the desired activity. To do this women often communicate information (what they say) that does not accurately, or in some cases contradicts the emotional and physical response they desire. Women communicate information through content or emotion. Men on the other hand tend to give accurate information (what they say) and use content or emotion to communicate the urgency or seriousness of the information. Men usually aim for clarity sacrificing content. This is not to taken as content and clarity are opposed to each other; both are needed. It has become a trope in Science Fiction that a massive intellect would be devoid of emotion; nothing could be further from the truth. The reason humans are more intelligent than lizards is we have a broader sensory and emotional range, and we have an intellect that can make subtle distinctions in emotions and feelings. To further illustrate how emotions carry information, we shall examine the related topics of sexuality and humor. Sexuality and humor are two of the simplest and clearest examples of how emotions carry information. We shall begin with sexuality. The obvious example of information being carried on emotions is what is found sexually attractive. The most obvious example is sexual fetishes. A sexual fetish us when an object or activity is found desirable by an individual, but seems inappropriate or uninteresting by the larger community the individual is member. In other words some object or activity is found sexually arousing by the individual with the fetish, but is not seen as arousing by the larger community. There is no need to go into explanations of how this happens since the psychological literature on this subject is voluminous. Let us move to the subject of humor. What do we find funny. Again humor is an example of inappropriate information being carried on emotion. Usually this means that the emotion that carres the information, does not represent the gravity of the information. This is why so called shallow characters are humorous. The emotions of the character do not represent the gravity or seriousness that the larger feels the information deserves. The usual shallow character displays self-serving information on an emotion that should inspire a more altruistic response. Of course, this works both ways, the information can inspire the inappropriate emotion. So the basis of humor is a mix up of content (emotion) and clarity (information). This is why there is such a close connection between tragedy and comedy. If the information is very far from the standards of the society, we have a villain instead of a comic. This is why villains become comic when they are not threatening. We shall move to another example of information and emotion. That is how emotions and information unite groups of agents into societies. This also ties into my last essay ("Remarks on Law and Government"). In the last essay we used Renaissance England as an analogy to our present age; in order to illustrate several issues. This was the age of the transition from feudalism to the modern nation state. When we examine the 14th. century and the 15th. century in western Europe we find a society that is tribal. Both the Hundred Years War, and the Wars of the Roses had no idealogical componet. There were no differences in governing philosophies between England and France in the Hundred Years War, and there was no difference in governing philosophies between the House of York and the House of Lancaster in the Wars of the Roses. The Wars of the Roses was of course a civil war; it is instructive to compare the Wars of the Roses with the latter civil was in England where Cromwell was victorious. In the English Civil War there was a very marked difference in governing philosophies. Two hundred years can make a big difference. The Hundred Years War, and the Wars of the Roses were both about loyalty to an individual or family clan. Only in the latter part of the Hundred Years War did national identity play apart. So what happened between Edward IV and Charles I to give England a national identity? What unites people is shared emotions. When people have the same emotional reaction to the same information. This accounts for national symbols such as the flag, or totem animals that all societies seem to have (U.S.A. and the eagle, and Russia and the bear would be examples).The point that we are trying to get across is people begin to think, and feel alike, This is what unites groups of people into societies and cultures. We know humans think in scenarios, and of course the most popular scenarios are stories. This is why children are hungry for stories, because they are learning how to think. This is also why ancient cultures always has a national or cultural epic, like the ancient Greeks and the " Iliad" and the "Odyssey." So the most important cultural event in Renaissance England was William Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote his plays in English so everyone could enjoy them. It was the start of vernacular literature in English, and it united the people. We know Shakespeare celebrated English history; this gave the people of England a sense of national pride. The people became united by common scenarios or stories, in which they shared common emotions. The Renaissance was the time of the rise of vernacular literature, thus also the time of the rise of national identities in western Europe. People became loyal to to the abstract idea of a nation-state, instead of religion and family. We shall now review the three minds I have posited: the Individual mind, the Private mind, and the Standard mind. We shall begin with the Individual mind. To begin with we must make a distinction between the "I" and the self. (feel free to consult my previous essay on the subject) the difference between the "I" and the self is that the self is a construct, while the "I" is not. The trouble arises because we usually use both terms interchangeably. The "I" is an abstraction of the continual feeling of being alive, that we all experience. The feeling of being alive is the desire to expand, In Schopenhauer's terminology it is the "will." This is not a construct, but an intrinsic part of any living entity. The "I" is the appetite to expand in space and time. The self is a construct. The information that composes the self is carried on the emotion that is the appetite to expand, thus the resulting confusion of the two. The Individual mind is the most personal and subjective of all the minds; it is what we would call one's personality. The Individual mind consists of unsublated image-triggers. It is the first image-triggers that humans learn to interact with their environment and culture. These are our basic reactions to our family, culture, and environment that are learned in early childhood. The strange part about many of the image-triggers of the Individual mind is they cannot be sublated. Even if a person gains knowledge of how a particular image-trigger it either is very hard to lift off or impossible to get rid of it; examples are habits, addictions, etc. As I am describing the different minds it must be realized there is no clear line of demarcation between them. They bleed into each other; they are a continuum, not compartments. The second mind is the Private mind. This is the mind of culture, family, and society. It is the information and emotions we share with other people. This is the mind that binds people together in groups, whether the groups be families, religions, or nation-states. We bond through shared emotion and information. This happens when the same emotion carries the same information. Examples would be religions, patriotic and national symbols, such as the Cross, the Flag, Star of David, etc. Emotions are what bring people together for common activity. The simplest example is fear. When a group of people are scared of a common threat, they unite. After the danger is over, individuals go back to their own pursuits. This is of course, a truth every politician and demagogue knows. This is why politicians and dictators are always in need of an enemy. The trouble with fear is people cannot be united for very long in fear. The fear either dissipates when the threat does not materialize or the fearful agent goes insane. Humans can only live in fear for a short time.This is why demagogues and politicians often use hate. Even though hate eventually destroys the hate, it can be maintained for a lot longer time. Hitler being a perfect example of both uniting people with hate, and hate destroying the hater. The reason I have used negative emotions as examples is, because it is a lot harder to get people to like or love each other. The third mind and last mind is the Standard mind. this is the mind of the highest abstraction, and is the considered objective. In simpler words, Standard minds are about activities that are the same for everyone. As long as the scenario is carried out, it works to achieve its purpose, no matter what the agent's emotional state. Examples are everything from science to plumbing. This is the mind that uses the law of non-contradiction as its criteria. In Standard minds as it states the Standards are the same for everyone. The way to get rid of subjectivity is the law on non-contradiction. This is how personal feelings or emotions are taken out of Standard minds. This is why many philosophers (including me originally, I have since modified my position) use the law of non-contradiction as the ultimate test for truth, but it is only a way or method for producing Standard minds. The law of non-contradiction is a mechanism that is dependent on what C.S. Peirce would call the pragmatic criteria. The pragmatic principle is that those activities that give the agent greater power over her environment are to be preferred. In other words what we are able to accomplish with our scenarios. The law of non-contradiction plays but a small part for the other two minds: Individual and Private. Religions, families,cultures, and individuals are full of contradictions, yet work for agents.