It's probably raw, physically experienced FEELING that dominated action before the develeopment of emotion. EMOTION is closely linked to language. Sadness, anger, love, envy, fear, etc. are conceptually--and that makes them culturally--defined experiences. When we observe them closely we see that they are organized manifestations of bodily sensations or feelings. Yet, as "emotions", we also see that they are equally grounded in thought.
Hi JL - this thing about language fascinates me. Using the apparent definitions of emotion and feeling that you have used - I don't quite agree with your conclusion on a couple of fronts :
- emotion can be exactly the same as feeling, except being named...or emotion can be, as you say, 'created' from the structures of language. Language structures themselves are complicated, because they are a structured association with a base concept. Language allows more intricate 'building' of a concept, but the base concept usually remains the same. What makes it more intricate is that we can attach other concepts, and other meanings to the language structure that we have built on top of the original concept.
-The emotion may then be triggered by language, but Feeling may flow from the emotion.
In other words, sometimes Feeling and Emotion are exactly the same (giving a name to it doesn't change it unless you believe it does change it), and Feeling may flow from emotion. At other times, emotion differs in a number of aspects to feeling.
Some of the reasons language fascinates me - the internal workings of our subconscious mind, and the structures and abilities of our mind, are often seen in the language we use. Hence when people say 'I have a gut feeling / listen to your heart / he hasn't got any balls / you're spinless' they are referring to both a part of our body and a character trait of our mind - and there is a reason we use these specific body parts to describe certain characteristics.
There are other ways of describing things that correspond directly to locations in our brain 'the depths of despair, the heights of passion, the forefront of new ideas, gone back to oblivion etc'.
Add this to our ability to access different parts of our minds and control 'movement' in our mind to produce results associated with specific feelings (but without actually experiencing those feelings) and it starts to become clearer.
Once you understand about accessing differing parts of your mind, it becomes clear why some people are described as 'well rounded individuals' or 'earthy' or 'off with the fairies' - it is a description of what parts of their minds they mostly access. The symbolism inherent in Russell Crowe's character in Gladiator reaching down and running his fingers through the dirt becomes clearer.
I dare say anyone who studies linguistics should find similar body part descriptions for similar corresponding behaviour, and similar experiential situations refered to in similar ways (back/forth/highs/lows etc) through all peoples and all languages.
In other words, language isn't just a structure in our mind, but is also representative of what already exists in our mind (prior to language) and represenative of the the connections to/and places in our mind where these things exist. So the passage goes both ways (probably from a similar cause to the passage between emotion and feelings going both ways)
Btw, that means we can use language to access our mind.