Life must be an energy system. All things are forms of energy, and anything which survives for even an instant must congeal through laws of energy (the laws of physics). If survival lasts longer than an instant, then the "thing" must be declared systematic - the energy relationships repeat through time and space. Any living "thing" (organism or creature) which has any lifespan must have repeated internal energy processes; life must be systematic.

Being systematic, life expends energy resources through its living processes (metabolism). For life to flow, energy must flow. Since energy resources are finite and do not magically reappear when spent, living organisms must replenish lost energy. Due to entropy, energy resources of any living organism are stolen by the environment, so the need for replenishment is magnified.

For life to endure, it must avoid being swept away by entropy. Life must scramble in the opposite direction by replenishing energy resources and avoiding disintegration. As Erwin Schrödinger stated in the 1940s, and Stuart Kauffman expanded upon recently, life must "ratchet" away from entropy (disorder) and climb toward negative entropy (order).

Along with all other living creatures, we are driven by the dangers of entropy to seek order (or "structure"). We do so in the form of food (structured molecules), shelter (protective structures), fuel (again, structured molecules), language (structured communication), culture (orderly behaviors), and most of all - knowledge (structured information). The so-called "information age" is older than the trilobites who grew eyes to gain information about the world around them. It continues today with our drive to broaden our knowledge through research, science, mass-media, art, and creativity.

Though we seem to escape the ravages of entropy by relying upon our senses and intellect, we rely upon one other mechanism. With entropy's steady and relentless drain of our energy, our other survival mechanism is minimizing energy usage whenever and however possible. We may call this "wearing clothes to keep warm" or "not wasting energy," but the underlying concept is efficiency. We must maximize and fully utilize what resources we have. The old adage of "waste not, want not" is as true today as ever. Over the past eons, the need to be efficient has sculpted birds and fish into the sleek, graceful forms that exist today. It has led to aerodynamic shapes for our vehicles. From watching pennies in our pockets to watching the budgets of our corporations and governments, we manage our time, energy, and money because it is limited, and we must use it efficiently.

So, too, must the human brain manage resources - the body and its blood and nutrients. With the constant consumption of nutrient resources, the brain must efficiently manage and replenish the reserves of the body. And if replenishing and using resources efficiently are keys to survival, then the brain should carefully manage behaviors and feed our precious resources only into behaviors which promote efficiency, create structure and order, and gain new resources. Such behaviors would then be deemed successful behaviors. In Gregg Henriques' terms, all behavior must have a positive return on investment. We must gain from our energy expenditures. Thus, our internal energy should be directed toward successful behaviors and withdrawn from unsuccessful ones.

This is the "scalpel" of Charles Darwin's "evolution through natural selection" and also forms the basis for the maxim, "Emotive Energy rises to success and falls from failure." In essence, we FEED success and STARVE failure. Outwardly, we spend our resources - our time, money and energy - on things which help us survive or enhance the quality of life. We FEED our energy into SEEKing whatever we deem to be "good." We seek happiness and safety, shelter and clothes, "creature comforts" and a nurturing environment. Meanwhile, we AVOID whatever we consider "bad." We avoid sickness, pain, and death. Whenever a behavior errantly causes pain or problems, we tend to quash it to prevent the problem from recurring. And as we avoid using such failed behaviors, they become "starved" from usage. Thus, we FEED successful behaviors by investing our precious resources into them, and we STARVE unsuccessful behaviors by withdrawing our resources from them. This rule can be seen within any individual or within social groups, organizations, and government.

Yet, emotive energy takes this rule down to even the most detailed level of the brain and the mind. Every thought has an energy strength, and all thoughts can be arranged in a ranking or "continuum of energy levels" as Elizabeth Duffy put it. This scalar reference gives rise to Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of wants" and Victor Johnston's "hedonic scale". Relative to each other, we "want" some things more than others. Meanwhile, other things are "unwanted" to a greater or lesser degree. We seek things we value most and avoid things unwanted. The greater we value something, the more we seek it. The more fearful we are of something, the more fervently we avoid it. Victor Johnston has theorized that our emotions are tied to this value scale. The more we value something, the more emotional we are about seeking it. The more aversive something is, the more emotion we evoke in avoiding it.

Using this hedonic scale of values, a competitive basis for decision making can be founded. In essence, our thought process mimics Herbert Spencer's, "Survival of the Fittest" - the idea which best fits the environment AND is most powerful (highest value) of all ideas fitting the environment will control behavior. In the decision process, thoughts are first selected by sensory input from the environment. The idea which best "fits" the sensory input is then selected. Theories like O. G. Selfridge's Pandemonium Model and Dominic Massaro's Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception (FLMP) explain the mechanisms of how a "best fit" model works for recognition and memory retrieval. However, multiple ideas may be retrieved along with multiple possible behaviors. At this point, the various alternative behaviors compete for control, and the idea of highest energy potential (value ranking) takes control via processes described by Bernard Baars in his Global Workspace Theory (GWT). To survive, the mind has mirrored the fundamental law of evolution into the decision process. Of all of the ideas which fit the situation, the most powerful takes control to evoke behavior.

Because the competitions vary in strength, so does emotion, as recognized by Robert Plutchik. Though we tend to categorize emotions separately, Plutchik rightfully classes emotions based upon a basic similarity. "Like" and "love" have a common theme of attraction. "Fear" and "terror" have a common theme of repulsion. Other emotions also fall into classes. Plutchik modeled this scalar component into an "orange" (or "grapefruit") analogy. Wariness grows into apprehension which increases into fear and may intensify into terror. Affinity builds into fondness and may grow into love. Emotions are fundamentally scalar.

It is this scalar factor of emotions that underscores the likelihood of a competitive decision process. Outward emotions are merely the "smoke" from "firey" competitions within the brain. The amount of smoke is indicative of the intensity of competition. Low energy competitions seemingly have "no smoke" (no emotion). High energy competitions create an eruption of fiery emotion.

And this competition, too, expresses our need for efficiency. As ideas compete for control, the brain tries to achieve a decision at the lowest energy level, thus conserving energy. With ideas energized based upon their heirarchy on the hedonic scale, they need only be energized until one defeats all competing ideas. In other words, high strength ideas can overcome low-empowered ideas at a relatively low energy activation level. It only needs to rise above the maximum of a lowly competitor. With low energy involved in the decision process, energy is conserved, and seemingly no emotion occurs. On the other hand, high-powered competitors demand greater energy levels by all participants. As high strength competitors do battle, greater and greater energy is drawn, and high emotions ensue.

Finally, a "rollercoaster" of emotions is not sought by natural selection. The basic goal of humans, as well as of any living organism, is to achieve and maintain a balanced internal energy flow despite environmental disruptions. This balanced state is encapsulated by Walter Cannon's term "homeostasis," and it must equate to what we call "happiness." If we seek happiness, it must be a balanced, homeostatic state which nurtures us. And it must also be, using Willam T. Powers terms, the "reference signal" of life. As we stray from happiness, we work to bring it back. We expend resources to maximize "feeling good" and minimize "feeling bad." If we do endure pain in the present, it is solely for the hope of greater happiness in the future.

These are the fundamental ideas behind Emotive Energy.

- JAKeeran

Back to Top

Previous Page

Emotive Energy Home