by Melissa Karnaze

mindful construct logo PAMELOR FOR SALE, Thought is encoded information. PAMELOR wiki, Emotion is a response to what that information means (i.e. – whether that information has a valence of good/bad or desirable/undesirable to a person, purchase PAMELOR online no prescription, What is PAMELOR, in the greater context of their life). The body's response to that meaning is expressed through the physical sensation of feeling, generic PAMELOR. PAMELOR photos, You can think all you want about something, but it’s the motivation, PAMELOR use, Online buying PAMELOR, or emotion, that gets you moving and mobilizes you to actually do something, where can i cheapest PAMELOR online.

Likewise, you can’t feel without having a thought or a reflex-like semblance of one (e.g, PAMELOR FOR SALE. PAMELOR brand name, – you see a snake from the corner of your eye and you jump back in fear before you can register consciously what happened).* This is because emotional reactions are built upon your framework for thinking, your belief systems, buy no prescription PAMELOR online, PAMELOR alternatives, and assumptions about how the world operates.

But, PAMELOR pics, Doses PAMELOR work, you say…emotions are irrational, illogical, australia, uk, us, usa, Taking PAMELOR, lesser, imperfect, PAMELOR natural. Online buy PAMELOR without a prescription, (Just ask any Vulcan, and he’ll tell you!)

Well, order PAMELOR no prescription, PAMELOR from mexico, it depends on how you define these christened terms. If you mean, comprar en línea PAMELOR, comprar PAMELOR baratos, Where can i cheapest PAMELOR online, strictly logical with no value assigned to that information, then yes, PAMELOR for sale, PAMELOR cost, emotions are irrational.

PAMELOR FOR SALE, But that’s not what these words mean when tossed around in everyday language. They’re supposed to mean the exact opposite of the antagonizing “passions” (emotions) as Aristotle used to call them, effects of PAMELOR. Order PAMELOR online overnight delivery no prescription,

Which is illogical in itself, as affective science continues to reveal how emotional reactions are underpinned by reason-respecting circuits—the two can’t be opposites because they depend upon each other in the brain.

So emotions are in fact reason-respecting, logical in that they follow a person’s thought processes, belief systems, and assumptive networks about the world.

Whew, that’s a relief. All this centuries-old denunciation of the emotional self as being lesser than the rational self is totally unfounded by our current science, PAMELOR FOR SALE.

Maybe it’s time to start paying attention to what we are feeling, in order to find out what thoughts and belief systems lay behind them, lodged in our subconscious.

And to start asking ourselves if those thoughts and belief systems are in fact rational, logical, good for health, and in our best interests.

What do you think.

*This is not including feelings which may be generated in response to electrical stimulation of the brain done in a lab.


{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Haider January 14, 2010 at 7:34 am

Wow, Melissa. You packed this short post with a ton of ideas!

When speaking of consistency, it’s important to point out whether the consistency is between emotions and a belief system, or emotions and the facts of life. Not all belief systems are rational (consistent with reality). Therefore, if our emotions are consistent with our belief system, they can still be irrational, because they are inconsistent with reality.

To develop a better relationship with our emotions, it’s essential that we acknowledge the fact that reason and emotions play different roles in our lives: the former is used to direct us towards our destination and the latter is used to propel us towards it (as you mention).

This doesn’t mean that the two aren’t connected: reason will condition our emotions, and our emotions will condition our reason. It doesn’t mean that one is lesser than the other, or can be a substitute for the other. Both are essential and both should be embraced, if we wish to lead a healthy, human life.

Melissa Karnaze January 17, 2010 at 10:51 am

“Not all belief systems are rational (consistent with reality). Therefore, if our emotions are consistent with our belief system, they can still be irrational, because they are inconsistent with reality.”

I agree with what you are saying.

I take a more nitpicky approach to the language though. :) I wouldn’t say that emotions are irrational. I see them as always being rational — rational responses for a particular person given their particular belief systems, and their particular “logic” (which may mean a lack of).

It’s as if thoughts are the black lines of blueprint, and emotions just add color and texture to the blueprint. The color and texture just go where they’re supposed to go, to better represent whatever’s being modeled.

I just think it’s more constructive to keep the “illogical” language away from emotions — because it *can* invalidate emotion in some unintended way. Not that you have done this in your comment though!

Haider January 17, 2010 at 11:54 am

I agree with you.

You don’t want people to think that their emotions are “wrong” and trying to suppress them, or feel guilty about them. While there may be more constructive emotions one can feel to cope with a particular situation, they cannot deny or condemn the emotions they already feel.

Bruce December 15, 2011 at 7:48 pm

Your “thought + meaning” theory of emotions is wrong. Emotions are not cognitive constructs based on sensations, as the old James-Lange theory states. Animal emotions predate cognition by hundreds of millions if not billions of years. Read Jaak Panksepp, Affective Neuroscience. He has a popular book coming out called The Archeology of the Mind. Google his name and you’ll find several PDFs of his papers. Here are four YouTube videos of an interview with him. He summarizes his ideas briefly. Enjoy!


Melissa Karnaze December 15, 2011 at 8:38 pm

Your “thought + meaning” theory of emotions is wrong. Emotions are not cognitive constructs based on sensations, as the old James-Lange theory states.

Bruce, you might be interested in reading this critique of the “natural kinds” theory of emotion. You seem to be referring to affect, which I don’t use synonymously with emotion.

Read Jaak Panksepp,

I have,

Affective Neuroscience.

I own it. ;)

Leave a Comment

By clicking "Submit" you understand that your submission may be edited or rejected at my discretion, and/or used in upcoming articles or publications. Unconstructive criticism, personal attacks, and requests for personal advice likely will not be published. Please refer to my Disclaimer if you have any questions.

{ 4 trackbacks }