An Emotion Theory

Emotion theory is psychology but this one has a little philosophy in it. Tell us what you think of it!

Subject - a cross-utilized unit of a relation
Relation - more than one subject combined together
Extrinsic Subject - subject given to a relation
Intrinsic Subject - subject contained in a relation
Right - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject
Wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject
True - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject and the extrinsic subject is beyond the scope of language
Possession - if an intrinsic subject is within a subject
Good - what increases a relation
Bad - what hinders or decreases a relation
Horror - excessive Bad
Serious - being within an extrinsic subject, also known as relevant
Silly - happiness that is not within an extrinsic subject
Crazy - if an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Confusion - if the choice of an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Value - direction of a relation
Like - to share Values

Happiness - occurs if subjects combine and form a relation. There are five different types of happiness. In order to include non-social relations in these definitions, the generic term combination is used symbolized with the letter 'C'.

1stC (primary) - occurs when subjects combine and a relation is formed. Here the extrinsic subject is created. The terms 'more' and 'less' do not apply with 1stC. It is very important to clarify that with 1stC one does not say, "Happiness is the combination of subjects," but, "Happiness occurs if subjects combine and form a relation."

2ndC (secondary) - occurs when subjects are combined to an existing relation. Here the extrinsic subject already exists. The terms 'more' and 'less' apply with 2ndC. Leverage and contentment exist because of 2ndC.

3rdC - occurs as the back and forth dynamics between relations. Here more than one extrinsic subject is involved.

Leverage - resembles a lever, the relative lowering of a subject in a relation causes the relative increase of the other related subjects. This also is known as antipathetic happiness. Subjects on opposite sides of the lever are antipathetic to each other. An examples of this is kidding.

Contentment - is a relative position a subject has in a relationship. This position is what we mean when we say we are "happy". Another term that applies here is "fashion". Fashion is the active form of contentment. This type of happiness is personal and can be stronger than 1stC. Some sub-emotions of contentment are:

Enjoyment - having what you want (having what gives you contentment) *
Grief - not having what you want *
Frustration - not getting what you want
Anger - excessive Frustration (urge to destroy)
Distress - having what you don't want*
Relief - not having what you don't want*

Unhappiness is, of course, the converse but with separation instead of combination.

Sorry - empathetic Unhappiness
Regret - the action toward Sorry
Gratitude - the action toward antipathetic Happiness
Forgive - declaring Unhappiness to be irrelevant
Blame - declaring Unhappiness to be relevant

Nervous - anticipation of a combination
Shy - excessive Nervousness
Worry - anticipation of a separation
Concern - mild Worry
Fear - excessive Worry
Terror - extreme Fear
Anxiety - general term for Nervous, Shy, Worry, Concern, Fear or Terror

Pride - above Contentment
Shame - below Contentment
Dignity - empathetic Pride
Arrogance, Conceit - excessive Dignity
Honor - the action toward Dignity
Jealousy - antipathetic Pride
Envy - the action toward Jealousy
Respect - antipathetic Pride related to Fashion
Admiration - the action toward Respect
Modesty - empathetic Shame
Humility - the action toward Modesty
Pity - antipathetic Shame
Pathetic, Pitiful, Contempt - excessive Pity
Disgust - the action toward Pity
Expectation - future Contentment
Hope - the action toward Expectation (to want a future Contentment)
Standard - past Contentment
Surprise - empathetically or antipathetically above Standard or Expectation
Embarrassment - empathetically below Standard or Expectation
Disappointment - antipathetically below Standard or Expectation
Ecstatic - excessive Surprise
Sadness - excessive Disappointment or Embarrassment
Hate - excessive antipathy
Love - excessive empathy (desire to support)
Miss - absent empathy


Axiom: Extrinsic subjects can never be related intrinsic subjects. Such an event would instantly cause a new extrinsic subject to exist. This is called "The League Rule" or "The Authority Rule."

Axiom: Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate. This is called "The Base Rule". It is a significant factor in morality.





*The definitions for Enjoyment, Grief, Distress and Relief are from I. Roseman 1984. Cognitive determinants of emotion: a structured theory. In P. Shaver (ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 5: Emotions, relationships, and health). Beverly-Hills: Sage, 11-36.

I've decided the definition for subject should be changed to:

Subject - an abstraction for or in a relation

JHuber, did you create those definitions and that diagram yourself or is there another source?

Whether you created it or not, what is your personal stance towards this theory? Do you subscribe to it? Do you base your life and relationships on it? If so, please describe how this theory takes place on a literal level for you personally.

Dawn, yes I am the author of it with the exception of enjoyment, grief, distress and relief which I gave credit for at the bottom of the post.

My personal stance towards this theory is absolute. However, every year I think it's set but every year I wind up modifying it.

Yes, I subscribe to it. It's impossible not to, I believe.

Yes, I base my life and relationships on it.

I've been at this for so long it's not possible for me to properly get personal here in this forum. That would be a small book. This isn't about me anyway. This should be the same for you as it is for me or for anyone else. There are only a few emotion theories in the world. I think this one is the best but then I am biased. I'd like to know what you think of it. It's ok if you think it should be scrapped, I won't take it personally.

I'm not sure what you mean by scrapped. If you mean to judge your work as rubbish - then no, I'm not doing that. If you mean delete your thread - I'm not doing that either.

I wanted more information, more clarity because I found the exact same original post you made on another forum, and I found a blog, which I assumed was written by the same person. I also found a replica of your image on wikipedia, however, I could not find any article associated with it.

I have not read word for word every description that you've made, nor did I read the whole blog. I didn't feel satisfied in regards to what I wanted to understand from the snippets that I was reading.

I think maybe the problem is that there is no real introduction included for what the purpose of this 'emotion theory' is. So when a person sees this, it's difficult to connect to it, they have to attempt to connect all the dots in order to try to decipher what this is for, which is something that would be better presented by you, the author.

I think explaining your motivations, what led you to do this, your own story, so to speak would be insightful; secondly, providing some information, even if it is one example, of applying this theory; and once those things are more clear, perhaps what your perceived benefits are to subscribing to this on a conscious level.

These are just suggestions based on what I think may elicit better understanding in others about what you are talking about. I don't know what your true motivations are, but I gather that if you believe that this the 'the best' 'emotion theory', then you must be naturally inclined to spreading information about it.

I see you did some research about this. I'm also willing to bet you are a well read person. Don't you find it odd that everything you found about subjects and relations was from me? I mean, I certainly didn't invent these words, they are common to us all. We all have family members and we all refer to them as relations. All people are subjects, not objects or units. There's no need to take a survey to validate it. It shouldn't need an explanation. Yet, as you know, in psychology and philosophy this is not there. I think it should be. I can't think of anything that is more important.

Here are a couple of interesting points about this theory:

Leverage - resembles a lever, the relative lowering of a subject in a relation causes the relative increase of the other related subjects. This also is known as antipathetic happiness. Subjects on opposite sides of the lever are antipathetic to each other. An examples of this is kidding.

Therefore, in order to employ leverage happiness the subjects must first be related. Even though the subjects are antipathetically related, they are still related. There are many ways to be related, biologically is only one. To be related in proximity is another. Leverage happiness doesn't work with someone you've just met for the first time.

Another important point is this:

Sadness - excessive Disappointment or Embarrassment

This is how sadness differs from unhappiness. An example of this point is that a children's hospital is a sadder place than a hospice.

I just thought I'd point those out. They are not brought up in psychology class.

I am going to add two more items to this theory. They are:

Entity - tangible subject
Concept - intangible subject

Although these are not emotions, I believe they are relevant to this system. Whereas the dictionary is a list, subjects and relations theory is a system. It is the guts of psychology.