Do emotions require linguistic expression for their actuality?

By that reasoning, no one coud think b4 the existence of words.

Obviously, animals can think and thay plan co-ordinated strategy
and communicate among themselves, tho thay probably have the equivalent of words (or telepathy) among themselves.





David

...you´r right, they do and they are wrong, but even imagining it was the case emotions are processed separately in the right hemisphere of the brain... the matter of fact is that they are not directly dependent in one specific medium of information processing like words or visual imagery or audio not even solely dependent on brain itself as the nervous system is not restricted to the central apparatus...rather they emerge out of an holistic and integrated computing process of several sectors of the brain, none in specific on itself is necessary, thus giving rise to a general state of affairs, consequently triggering and requiring a certain parallel proportional or symmetric response from the said right hemisphere emotional computing "processor" (this one obviously is necessary) corresponding to the emerging general result or outcome of such multiple inputs...emotions in order to emerge like for instance, well being, anxiety, fear, etc are a general reaction to the state of equilibrium that the system presents as a whole and not the necessary result of one input alone, that is or means, that although any sector can trigger a prevalent state of affairs that results in a specific emotional state, none of them is absolutely required, to produce an emotional reaction other then the very emotional processor itself, and obviously some form of informational input who gets there in the first place...

I wouldn't say I think that, but I can see why without meditation, or attention to something that is not linguistically based you would come to that conclusion.

it is necessary to clarify that obviously all inputs are not equally important, and thus that primary survival functions as others such like algorithmic combinations of informational inputs are in fact considered a priority, nevertheless what was essentially meant in my previous posts was that none of the specific mediums of informational processing like vision, audio, "language", etc with the exception of the emotional processor itself are necessarily required to obtain a comprehensive emotional response.

...there is a problem with the very concept of "language" itself in this debate...language is not just words or specifically words...maths is a language, images are language, audio can be language...language is not dependent on a specific form or medium but rather dependent on any kind of code decode assembling process who is able to inform and present meaning...words are just one of the possible processes at hand...when your brain receives a set of visual stimuli for instance still is necessary that such stimuli are decoded in order to produce a rationalised meaningful image...such image alone carry´s a message that on itself can trigger a prevalent emotional reaction, but obviously you don´t particularly need eyes and images to have emotions...with words is just the same...

I think there needs to be a clear idea of what an 'emotion' is. It is concieveable to have the idea that emotion can be 'represented' in music (as Cyracuz pointed out) but we also have the idea that 'emotions' are a biological response (what ever the particulars maybe). Also, GH suggested animals having a far more diverse and developed collection of emotions than that of a non human. So even if we came up with a consensus view on emotion, the ironic thing is, is that we still have to use words to try and define what 'emotions' are.

...take the word define or its specific common meaning out of that last sentence and you don´t need oral written language for anything else regarding the expression of an emotion or even the imagery conveying the manifestation of an emotion...words cannot convey or define emotions merely on describing them without the subject himself be capable of having emotions...if anything and (to some) its open for debate, words or any other form of language, to properly inform emotions nature, have to establish the algorithmic functional relations that emotions themselves do and are...

...the reason they (words) don´t need to do that is because we already know them (emotions) or assume others to know them when we (symbolically) speak of them...language is used as a shortcut to the subjects own experience, although I am one of those who actually argues that a language can mimic the algorithmic functions we ourselves experience, once our process in reality is itself the result of the meta phenomenal workings of a deeper level of language and its informational articulation of algorithms... ...and that, to my view is, the true "geometry/form" of the world !

But what exactly are these algorithms?


I agree with this idea of 'mimesis', and it seems you are suggesting an abstract process on which expression of information is articulated in a deeper level of language. So by that idea we can say emotion is an algorithmic function in relation to a deeper meta phenomenal language. But what is this language about?

I think music has a more complex relation to emotion than 'representation'.

The ultimate Language and its algorithmic shaping´s are about what we usually call Reality, that is/means, the whole fabric by which reality abides...
...or if you want/prefer, the true "atoms" that constitute the true geometry/forms that any set or entity can manifest probably can be reduced to discrete bits...
I for one, in my mental imagery, reduce them all to Maths !

I think I agree with that.
Music can be both an expression and an impression of emotion. The thing I like about it is that you can use music to express emotion without expressing what the emotion is about.
If I play an aggressive riff on my guitar, I might be expressing irritation that has accumulated during the day, say while driving home during rush hour. A person listening might have accumulated his irritation during the day by sitting in a warm office where the AC was down.
By playing I work through my irritation, and by listening he works through his. If we tried to do it by means of a conversation it would perhaps not work. He might think I was foolish to complain about sitting in a car, where I could have had the windows open, while he sat in his office sweating, and I could just as easily fail to relate to his irritation because sitting in an office would seem a lot more appealing to me than enduring the stress of rush hour.

Thanks for the clarity Fil

Your right PQ, music and emotion isn't merely just representation. When I perform up on stage, I find connecting with the audience is the one of the toughest things to do as a performer, but I find that genuine emotions are generally well received. Sometimes I have to 'lose it' to 'find it', if you get my meaning.

Music is (aesthetically and emotionally) most superficial when it is "representational". Compare Bach's partitas for solo violin to the honking car horns of Gershwin's American in Paris.

I think the main problem with representation is that most sounds can be 'read' or seen differently in terms of which mental image you have in mind. Music has no conceptual boundaries which limit interpretation, so it absorbs meaning really easily.

...I don´t think there is anything that limits conceptual interpretation upon nothing beyond your very own state of mind in relation to the object be it music or something as dull as chairs...you are talking about something else which as to do with the amount of effort and value, namely, the things where we naturally place more commitment in interpreting...music thrives upon dopamine in the brain...no wonder we are so committed to pay attention to it and extract some specific meaning out of the circumstantial function we are establishing with it at a given time, and which lately may vary...we probably can recall them all by memory (the variation of meanings in music) because they all refer to positive reinforcements and pleasure...