then above that is the subset of e-motions that you are aware of.
then above that is the subset of e-motions that you would consider to be your "will"
indeed, your "will" has to include some e-motions that you are unaware of.
but the question then is in identifying what your will is.
sometimes it's really hard to tell what you REALLY want.
sometimes you have to use external/objective methods to figure it out.
like if you catch yourself repeatedly asking yourself for something, then maybe that's a sign that that's what you want.
your will can't be purely arbitrary--it has to be rooted in some desire.
a purely arbitrary will is an emotionaly tyranny.
speculation: run your emotions like a representative democracy and you will be happy
speculation2: you COULD be a benevolent dictator on your self, but you have to also make sure you are a wise philosopher-king
so on second thought, maybe spec. 1 is the best. democracy has been the most economically and militaristically successful LATELY (it wasn't during the Ancient Greeks)... but there is something to be said about decentralized control.
How would a democracy of emotions work? Every emotion gets a voice and every emotion gets an equal say in controlling what you do.
Doing things is then a matter of catering to the popular opinion of your emotions.
but whatever, we are not machines and it's too simplistic to look at ourselves as having these little boxes of emotions..
ultimately our models are going to be inaccurate representations.n
internal monologues are just self-communication, and communication we already know is innacurate and designed for other purposes.
I wonder if we will ever know the evolution of the interior monologue.
it currently seems like at outgrowth of speechs
speech
speculation: interior monologue started as a short-term buffer for speech
and then that short-term buffer began to refer to ourselves. So inner-speech + self-awareness becomes sort of like the consciousness we have now.
But anyway, I mentioned earlier that speech is a selfish act. This ma
This may be too simplistic of an analysis though. Rather, speech doesn't communicate all you may think it does. We put our own filter on what we say, public discourse determines acceptable and unacceptable topics, and there's mad biases everywhere. You can't take what is said too seriously.
And by extension then, you can't take your inner-monologue too seriously.
I wonder if Seligman or others in positive psychology have determined what relationship happiness has to "doing what you want and wanting what you do." Deh, whatever, it's going to be overly simplistic. There are definitely those who are happy who don't do what they want or want what they do all the time, but have other reasons to be happy.
