There is no doubt whatsoever that emotions are very
important and highly significant in the processing of data and information, as
well as in the day-to day functioning of the human being. Eric Klinger, whose
expertise is in personality psychology and motivation theory, focuses on the
influences of motivation and emotion on cognition. Klinger suggests a “primary function
of several emotions is to direct attention to concern-related stimuli. (p.42) Besides
being important for attention, emotions are also very significant in memory
functions. Eric Klinger talks about the importance and the role of emotions in
motivation: “Emotion is relevant to goal striving, purpose, and meaning in at
least two fundamental ways. First, it constitutes the ultimate system for
evaluation. It thus is the basis for value, which in turn determines what
people strive for; and it is the internal code for experiencing goal pursuits
as going well or ill. Second it is intertwined with cognitive processing – for
example, with attention, recall, thought content, And dream content – and may
very well be necessary for quickly noticing and processing events around us and
inside us. In the second role, it codetermines people’s inner experience and
their construals of the world around them.” (Quest p.34) That is, emotions are
a significant, if not primary, contributor to the “system” of evaluation or
value structure for meaning and purpose. Secondly emotions shape a person’s
world-view.
Emotional communication is vital to much of effective social and political communication. It would be self-evident that any politician who communicates entirely in flat and unemotional tone of voice without facial expressions would not likely garner many votes. Without emotional communication it could be possible that society itself would cease to function effectively. Very basic and fundamental processes in the human brain are dependent on emotions and nonconscious processes. The amygdala, the brain region responsible for processing fear responses, is a pivotal brain region that is highly emotional. Also, memories appear prioritized by emotions and emotional content. The ordinary daily course of events tends to be prioritized by needs, drives, wants, and desires – processes all heavily steeped in emotional content.
Emotions in human history have frequently been viewed as a characteristic of our ‘animal’ heritage. The famous neuroscientist Ramachandran believes that in contrast to the ordinary view that emotions are more phylogenetically primitive and often thought almost as something primal, emotions in some situations appear to have a fairly sophisticated aspect to them. The notable philosopher Robert Solomon observed, “Emotions are intelligent, cultivated, conceptually rich engagements with the world, not mere reactions or instincts.” (p. ix passions) Solomon, was something of a social and scientific prophet. Eighteen years before the neuroscientist, Damasio, concluded that emotions are essential and vital to decision making and judgment, Solomon stated unequivocally that “emotions are judgments.” Andrew Newberg, a neurologist, summarizes Damasio’s research, “Damasio contends that our emotions are fundamental to our ability to make decisions and understand the world, a view that is now widely accepted in the neurosciences.” (p 42 believe)Solomon goes on to state that “Emotions are intelligent, cultivated, conceptually rich engagements with the world, not mere reactions or instincts.” (p. ix passions) He argues that emotions have purposes, which would mean that emotions must be intimately linked with the process of setting goals – a process generally understood to be an abstract process.
There is a general folk-psychology view that emotions tend to be over-powering and difficult to control. Over two thousand years ago, Aristotle observed: “Anyone can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person at the right time, and for the right purpose and in the right way - that is not within everyone's power and that is not easy.” As Solomon points out, in the everyday usage of language, the “self” is frequently portrayed as a passive player in relation to the raging storm of the passions: we ‘“fall in” love’; we are ‘“paralyzed” by fear’; we are ‘”plagued” by remorse’; we are ‘“felled” by shame’; we are overwhelmed by grief; we are ‘”haunted” by guilt’; we are compelled or ‘”driven” by anger’; “We are “heartbroken,” “crushed,” “smitten,” “overwhelmed,” “carried away,” and “undone” by passion.” (p. xv passions) That is, at times, it is almost as if we are bystanders observing some other (emotionally) possessed-self performing in some theatrical drama rather than ordinary reality. The emotional and cognitive aspects seem often to have an adversarial relationship and emotions seem elusive and inaccessible at times to rational analysis. Even modern psychologists note the strong influence of emotions in the processes of the mind. Denise R. Beike and Travis S. Crone observe, “When emotion is aroused, it alters – even constrains – further thoughts and judgments.” (Bower, 1981) (p. 323 Quest)
In fact, Solomon asks how it is possible to approach emotions in any objective (scientific) way when an important characteristic of emotions is their subjective characteristics. And, of course “subjective” would seem oppositional to “objective.” It should be noted that not all the prefrontal cortex regions have direct access to the powerful amygdala region, the ventro-medial prefrontal cortex being something of an exception. Johnston and Olson note that “It is very difficult to articulate what an emotion is because there is something indescribable about feeling,” and the reason for that may be that the emotions may not be directly accessible to many of the cognitive processes.
Though we would probably prefer to view ourselves as “rational-individuals” with self-control, and perhaps even wisdom, proceeding all the time in logical and rational ways, as the philosopher Matthew Ratcliffe argues, rationality does not and can not operate in a void, and rationality is embedded in emotions - though perhaps it may be that it is emotions that are embedded in cognitive processes. It should be said that in most all the MRI studies that I have seen the emotional regions of the brain always appear to work in tandem with other cognitive processes. That being said, Solomon argues that, in the end, “It is our passions, not our reason (and surely not “nature”), that constitute our world, our relationships with other people and, consequently, our Selves.” (p.15 Passions)
It does appear rather self-evident that emotions, though socialized and ‘rationalized’ to a fair degree, play an important, if not central, role in forming and shaping the interpersonal relations of a person, and thus, to a large degree emotional meaning also shapes and structures society and the world. The people-world is a world of emotions. We love or hate such and such a person. We feel attracted or repelled by people. We feel compassion for those who suffer. People can alternately make us angry or sad. Feelings and emotions also shape our consciousness of objects as well as animals. The sun makes us feel warm and in most climates people tend to be view sunlight and the sun as beneficial and helpful. Many people are actually sun-worshippers reveling in the world-wide sun-tanning ritual. In that the “atom” is associated with the atom bomb, even the abstract concept of atom has the potential to invoke feelings of fear. Animals such as tigers, in the wild, evoke feelings of fear. Many people have phobias about snakes or spiders. In contrast, our pets - our cats or dogs, or rabbits or hamsters, or even snakes - give us feelings of attachment and love. As one psychologist observed, we like to feel – and feel strongly!
Solomon’s central thesis is that emotions are “our own judgments, with which we structure the world to our own purposes, carve out a universe in our own terms, measure the facts of Reality, and ultimately “constitute” not only our world but ourselves. Rather than disturbances or intrusions, these emotions, and the passions in general, are the very core of our existence, the system of meanings and values within which our lives either develop and grow or starve and stagnate….The passions are judgments, constitutive judgments according to which our reality is given its shape and structure” (p. xvii passions) The psychologist Eric Klinger observes that perceptual systems alone cannot make judgments of the goodness or badness of a stimulus – “emotion relays its significance for the future, whether good or bad, desirable or abhorrent.” (p.35) Klinger suggests that emotions also may contain built-in schemas which direct actions relative to the perception itself. Emotions do definitely contribute to our understanding of relationships and people as well as objects in the world. Emotions determine our orientation to others from mother and father, to priest and policeman. So, emotions shape our beliefs about others, as well as social and political groups and organizations. There really isn’t a question of whether emotions are significant and important. The question is how and in what ways are emotions influential in human consciousness and behavior.
In a somewhat humorous synopsis of his thesis, Solomon states unequivocally, “The many varieties of “objective reason,” for example, however brilliantly they perform in their own quarters – in mathematics and scholarship, in theoretical biology or chess matches – are often profoundly inept at dealing with life….But this much is clear, that pure theoretical reason is as intimately related to the day-to-day problems of life as good taste in wine to the task of cleaning out the cat litter.” (p.63 Passions) In a more serious tone, the philosopher Matthew Ratcliffe points out, “The emphasis on propositional content is associated with a rather impoverished conception of experience.” (p. 149 Rat)
It should be noted that much of modern psychology and neuroscience has taken the view that much of the data and the information processed by the human brain is processed nonconsciously and the actual processing role of the conscious mind is relatively small in comparison. Especially in philosophy, objective reason, which necessarily means in folk understanding, the conscious mind, to this day, is connected with “propositional statements and arguments.” In normal everyday life, nonconscious processes, intuition, metaphor, paradigmatic and model-creation, and narrative thinking are used much more than “propositional statements.” Every time I read that quote of Solomon’s it gives me a chuckle because it is actually really very true, and yet Solomon expresses the ultimate role of rational analysis in a very wry fashion and with a bit of a twist. So, it seems apparent that the philosopher Solomon is, in fact, comparing the venerated discipline of philosophy to ‘cleaning out the kitty litter.’ Eric Klinger notes that “Purposes thereby color the person’s subjective world and the kind of meaning he or she extracts from it. From the evidence described, this impact is not one that takes place deliberately or necessarily consciously.” (p. 43) He is saying that 1. Purposes are not objective and 2. The processes that determine meaning aren’t necessarily conscious or strictly rational processes.
Historically speaking several great thinkers have rejected rationalism and philosophy. Both Lev Tolstoy and Al Ghazali both rejected rationalism and philosophy. Lev Tolstoy, the brilliant Russian writer and novelist, was one of the world’s great thinkers, as well as a radical Christian and extreme pacifist. Tolstoy greatly influenced Gandhi, as well as Martin Luther King Jr in their beliefs in pacifism and their strategies for social reform. At the pinnacle of his writing career after he had completed the epic novel War and Peace, Tolstoy descended into a severe spiritual ad identity crisis. He desperately sought the one “True” meaning of life. Being a very rational and logical person, he methodically studied and researched all the sciences as well as philosophy and religion for the real meaning of life and Truth. In the end, he reached the conclusion that, rationally, there simply is no meaning of life. Tolstoy was an avid hunter but for fear that he might take his own life, Tolstoy didn’t carry a gun with him when he went out riding horses. Tolstoy, being a noble, owned serfs and came to the conclusion that the Russian peasants accepted life as an act of faith. He came to regard his personal ‘complexity’ as a distinct part of his problem, and consciously tried to emulate the Russian peasant both in simplicity, form, and clothing as well as in thought and belief. Tolstoy, in the end decided that “life” must be take on faith and belief in God was an act of faith.
Solomon stated unequivocally, “Thus I suggest that emotions are the meaning of life. It is because we are moved, because we feel, that life has a meaning. The passionate life, not the dispassionate life of pure reason, is the meaningful life.” (p.ix passions) “The meaning of life is to be found in the passions, or it can be found nowhere,” (p.24 passions) A key part of that profound statement is, “because we are moved.” I would argue that, psychologically, the question of the meaning of life reduces to a question of motivation. Essentially the core question is: Why do we live? Tolstoy states, “If a man lives, then he must believe in something. If he did not believe that there was something he must live for he would not live.” (p.54 conf) The reader should note that Tolstoy specifically says live “for”. Several psychologists and psychiatrists, including Frankl, observe that humans need to have something outside themselves to ultimately motivate them.
A fascinating footnote to Solomon’s argument that emotions are the source of meaning, which other psychologists echo, is a side-story of Tolstoy’s search for the meaning of life and Truth. Doubts and questions can be quite destructive to belief structures. Tolstoy’s severe spiritual-identity crisis led him to doubt and question everything. His rational analysis-questioning led Tolstoy to abandon ALL emotions as unworthy and unsuitable for any absolute understanding of the meaning of life. So, even love and compassion were abandoned by Tolstoy. Many tend to view rational analysis as being inherently “good” (as opposed to reason). Yet rational analysis, in and of itself, has no conscience and definitely does not know good from evil. Rational analysis can be used to discover new medical cures and also can be used for things like the Final solution of the Nazis. As Einstein stated good and evil are beyond the scope of science.
The psychologists, G. Reker, J. Birren, and C Svensson observe: “”When we ask, “What is the meaning of life?” we are asking: “What is worth living for? What is the purpose of life?” Such questions call for value judgments and cannot be answered apart from one’s belief system or worldview.” (p.386 Quest) Any question about purpose is essentially a question of motive(s). In psychology beliefs ultimately depend on a foundation of (emotional) values, and values depend on motives embedded in emotional context. Human motivation, in the end, rests on a bedrock that consists of desires, wants, needs, and drives. These powerful and influential forces are embedded in human consciousness. Motivations can be viewed as strivings for goals, and Eric Klinger states that, “Goal striving cannot happen without systems for relating to the world outside.” (P34 quest.) That is to say, motives are motives “for” something, in the end, and not created in a vacuum, and that motives necessarily involve a “system” or a structure.
In human history there can be no question that thought and cognitive processes do influence and shape these forces. Yet, in the end motivation can never be a purely rational concept or abstraction. It must be remembered that rational analysis is a process and not an object or substance. And logic is nothing but a tool. In that sense then, a conclusion or maxim would be that “Life really is not an abstraction.” The Biblical prophet Jeremiah used the metaphor of a potter shaping clay with that of God reshaping Jewish society and religion. In a psychological metaphor, the “I” – the self or identity - takes the emotional clay that consists of wants, desires, needs, and drives, and then works purposes and values and shapes them into beliefs, structures, and ideologies. These structures are made and created from raw substance of desires, wants, needs, and desires.
In a process parallel to Dan McAdams narrative psychology, the psychologists Denise R. Beike and Travis S. Crone did a study of autobiographical memories and the effect of memories on behavior and beliefs. After noting that self-defining memories are “highly emotional,” (p. 321 Quest) the psychologists, D. R. Beike and T. S. Crone, state: “The results of the experiment demonstrate that self-defining memories, as emotional pieces of a life narrative, are tagged with a lesson or insight, a potential meaning. Closed memories, as unemotional single-event recollections, are not tagged but, rather, lead to a sense of having discovered meaning through the act of reflection upon the memory.” (p.329) They discovered that the “self-defining” memories can provide pivotal points in the formation of beliefs and meanings.
Neuroscience has made some significant progress in illuminating our understanding of emotions. The experiments of Antonio Damasio were pivotal in that progress. Antonio Damasio, Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Southern California and notable author of several books about the human brain, emphasizes the role of the bodily processes in processing information and decision making. His theory has some background. Damasio and his colleagues performed some breakthrough experiments on patients who had damage to their prefrontal cortex. One patient named Elliot (not his real name) had damage to his ventromedial prefrontal cortex. It had resulted from the removal of a tumor in his brain. Elliot’s family had brought Elliot to Damasio and his colleagues because since the tumor had been removed he had gone from being reliable father, spouse, and worker to being erratic and unpredictable. He had lost the ability to prioritize in his job, and had developed a tendency to become obsessed with very particular and specific nonessential tasks. After the removal of the tumor, Elliot got fired from his job. He took several more jobs but failed to keep them. Then he went into several business ventures, all of which failed. Finally, he had to declare personal bankruptcy. Shortly after his operation, Elliot also divorced his wife. He quickly remarried and six months later got divorced. In his personal life as well as his business life he simply lacked the good judgment he had exhibited up to that point in his life.
Yet, when you spoke to Elliot and engaged him, you would think he was a perfectly sensible, rational person. For Damasio, Elliot was something of a puzzle. They gave Elliot a whole battery of cognitive, personality, and moral evaluation tests. Elliot passed all the tests with flying colors. Damasio did notice that Elliot was remarkably calm and “detached” throughout the interview and testing process. (p.44) He was always “controlled” and never showed any excitement at all. Damasio remarks, “I found myself suffering more when listening to Elliot’s stories than Elliot himself seemed to be suffering.” (p.44 Descartes) The clues were all there but the final tip off came in an interview following a test in which emotionally and occasionally gruesome pictures were shown to subjects. Elliot told Damasio that while he grasped the cognitive significance of the pictures, those pictures would definitely have “evoked a strong emotion” before the tumor had been removed. However, now, the pictures “no longer caused any reaction, positive or negative.” (p.45 descartes) Elliot had lost the capability to feel.
Damasio and his team tested the patients with prefrontal damage by showing them a series of pictures, some of which were emotionally charged, while observing their reactions with skin conductance tests. All of the ‘normal’ subjects showed a skin conductance response when the emotionally evocative pictures were shown. The patients with prefrontal cortex damage did not show any skin conductance, even when shown incredibly detailed gruesome pictures. To be certain of the results, they reran the experiment with the same “unequivocal” results. In post experiment interviews with subjects, the patients with prefrontal damage were able to describe the scenes in detail and identify the appropriate emotional response to the picture, even though there were no evident emotional processes involved. The patients with damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex had the ability “to know but not to feel.” (p.45) Damasio reasoned that the ventromedial prefrontal cortex was a region “where emotional processing and reasoning come together in decision making.” (p.104 FB)
Damasio’s team next devised a gambling game, now called the Iowa Gambling Test, during which subjects were tested for skin conductance response. First Damasio established that the patients with prefrontal damage showed a skin conductance response to a loud noise or bright light (which they did). The subjects played a gambling game with realistic looking fake money. There were four decks (A, B, C, and D). In the game, there was a payout for each card turned over though the amount of the payout varied according to which deck of cards was used. For decks A and B, the payout for each card was $100. For Decks C and D, the payout was only $50. Then there were penalties for certain cards turned up. Unknown to the subjects, the decks were rigged. The trick to the game was that the penalties for decks A and B were much higher than the penalties for decks C and D. The penalty for decks C and D was $100 while the penalty for decks A and B could run as high as $1,250. Statistically, the A and B decks were losers while C and D decks were winners.
Damasio notes that, like many real life situations, this was a case where a person had to make a judgment – an educated guess – on the course of action. What the experimenters found was that the ‘normal’ subjects would sample cards from each deck, but after about thirty plays showed a distinct tendency to steer away from the loser decks. It was the opposite with the subjects with prefrontal damage. They took fewer and fewer cards from the low risk decks, increasingly taking cards from the loser decks. They would persist in choosing the loser decks in spite of the fact that they were forced to take out loans to keep playing. Patients who had brain damage outside the prefrontal cortex, so long as they understood the game, performed as normal people did.
The results of the skin conductance response tests showed that both normal people and the patients with prefrontal damage showed a response after the cards were turned and revealed as either a reward or punishment. What was interesting about the test was that normal subjects developed an “anticipatory” skin conductance response as they played. The anticipatory skin conductance response was stronger just before the subjects turned cards on the loser decks. However, patients with prefrontal damage showed no anticipatory response whatever. From those results, Damasio concluded that “[T]he neural systems that would have allowed them to learn what to avoid or prefer are malfunctioning, and are unable to develop responses suitable to a new situation.” (p. 221 DE)
Another interesting result came from interviews of subjects during the course of the game (every ten turns). Normal subjects developed hunches and were later able to articulate rational evaluations. However the patients with damage to their prefrontal cortex did not develop hunches though, surprisingly, 50% of the patients with prefrontal damage were able to express cognitive evaluations of the decks. What is remarkable is that in spite of consciously realizing that the A and B decks were loser decks, they continued playing the loser decks. It would seem that cognition alone is not sufficient in and of itself to change behavior.
Damasio identifies three regions involved in the decision-making processes involved in the Iowa Gambling Test: the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC); the amygdala (the vmPFC is one of the few prefrontal regions that has a pathway down to the amygdala); and the right somatosensory cortices. The somatosensory processes figure highly in Damasio’s analysis of the situation. Damasio identifies three regions involved: the primary somatosensory cortex; the association somatosensory cortex; and the insula. Together these regions perform a bodily mapping function that identifies the status of the external and internal senses. Damasio developed his Somatic Marker Hypothesis which states that the somatic markers of the bodily processes influence decision making and help guide behavior. It is clear from the Iowa gambling task that bodily nonconscious processes were involved in normal decision-making, since sweat (which generates the skin conductance response) was heavily involved in the subjects’ decision-making. This led Damasio to realize “that sensing of the state of the body is vital to the type of emotional signaling that aids decision-making in real life.” (p. 113 FB)
Damasio’s book about patients with damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex is titled Descartes’ Error. Descartes, of course, is famous for stating, “I think, therefore I am.” From a strict logical analysis, it could be construed that the statement implies that thinking, in some way, actually creates being. Personally, I always thought it should have been, “I am, therefore I think.” After all, you can’t think yourself into existence. The point of Damasio’s title for the book is that an overemphasis on thought and cognition is unrealistic and a rather large error in judgment – that emotions are vital to healthy decision-making and judgment. Johnston and Olson note that “Damasio suggests that social and personal reasoning/decision-making is distinct from the “pure” reasoning that has been emphasized by philosophers and that we often associate with logical problem-solving. Social and personal decisions are notoriously complex and inherently uncertain.” (p.110 FB) Johnston and Olson conclude that “[T]he need for anticipatory SCR responses in order to perform well in the gambling task is a concrete experimental demonstration of the powerful role that emotions and bodily feelings play in decision-making.” (p.116 FB) Needless to say, decision-making and judgment necessarily involve making a determination of the meaning of a situation. In the Iowa gambling task the subjects were required to determine the meaning(s) of the different decks of cards.
While the conclusion that emotional and noncognitive processing of data is vital for good judgment and normal decision making is correct, it should also be noted that in normal judgment and decision making, the prefrontal cortex is also absolutely necessary for good judgment. That is, a person needs and requires both emotions and cognitive processes to achieve any healthy and balanced judgments and behavior. In fact, an inescapable conclusion would seem that the emotional and cognitive processes are inextricably and intimately intertwined.
It would also seem an inescapable conclusion that emotions and emotional content is prevalent and pervasive in meaning and meanings, and further that emotions are also prevalent and pervasive in the structures within the human mind – structures which form and shape our way of life and way of looking at the world. Klinger talks about a “system” for evaluation as well as a system for the processing of perception. This goes back to the interconnectedness of meaning(s). Meaning, as Steger observes, is a “web” of myriad inter-connections and inter-relationships. Further, there needs to be a coherent structure for all the myriad array of emotions. Baumeister has a theory of different desires, wants, needs, and drives that often compete, or alternatively complement each other. An obvious conflict would be a potential conflict between the sex drive and morality (need to belong). In order to avoid being a complete spastic in responding alternatively between this desire, or that need, there must be some kind of internal structure (which most psychologists would refer to as “self” or “identity” that sorts through and works out the various conflicts.
As Hogg and Abrams points out, every discipline in the humanities assumes in one form or another that human beings need – and have – structure simply in order to function anywhere near effectively. I believe every child psychologist would agree with the maxim that “children need structure!” It should be remembered that adults, in a sense, are just big children (i.e. Trump). Structures give meaning shape and form, and people need that shaping and order. Perhaps that is why people take to ideologies (structured meaning) like fish take to water. In shaping and forming meaning, structure and ideology actually define meaning. For meaning to mean something it necessarily must be assigned a place or position in a relevant structure.
So, it would seem an insoluble conundrum to have meaning without structure. So, inherent in the need for meaning is a powerful need for structure and ideology. Built into these propositions would seem to be some kind of ”Meaning Structure.” And yet, there would seem to be an inherent paradox in that meaning, if derived from emotions, since emotions do not on the face of it, appear to lend themselves easily and readily to logic, rational analysis, or order.
Content Copyrighted Charles E Peck Jr. Copyright ©
References and Footnotes
Profile of Dr. James Doty: https://profiles.stanford.edu/james-doty
The Center for Compassion And Altruism Research And Education: http://ccare.stanford.edu/
American Psychological Association: https://www.apa.org/
Association for Psychological Science: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/about/links.cfm
Albert Einstein comprehensive website: http://alberteinsteinsite.com/
Albert Einstein Biography: https://www.biography.com/people/albert-einstein-9285408
Godel’s Theorem of Incompleteness: https://www.jamesrmeyer.com/ffgit/godels_theorem.html
John Bargh, PhD: http://bargh.socialpsychology.org/
https://www.rogerdooley.com/john-bargh-priming
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/bargh/index.html
Rupert Sheldrake: https://www.sheldrake.org/
Viktor Frankl: http://www.viktor-frankl.com/
Viktor Frankl: http://www.viktorfrankl.org/
Dr. Harold Koenig: https://spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/index.php/harold-g-koenig-m-d
Dr. Harold Koenig: https://medicine.duke.edu/faculty/harold-g-koenig-m-d
Roy Baumeister: http://www.roybaumeister.com/
Roy Baumeister: https://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/baumeisterr/baumeister.dp.php
Dr. Paul Wong: http://www.drpaulwong.com/
Dr. Paul Wong: https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/paul-wong-biography/
Clifford Geertz: https://www.biography.com/people/clifford-geertz-9308224
Carl Jung: https://www.biography.com/people/carl-jung-9359134
Carl Jung: https://www.psychologistworld.com/cognitive/carl-jung-analytical-psychology
12 common Archetypes: http://www.soulcraft.co/essays/the_12_common_archetypes.html
Emile Durkheim: http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/
Emile Durkheim: http://faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Durkheim/index2.htm
William James: https://www.biography.com/people/william-james-9352726
William James: https://study.com/academy/lesson/william-james-psychology-theories-lesson-quiz.html
Tania Singer references: http://cultureofempathy.com/References/Experts/Tania-Singer.htm
https://charterforcompassion.org/discovering-empathy/dr-tania-singer-and-the-neuroscience-of-empathy
Dr Amit Sood Mindfulness: https://www.mindfulleader.org/amit-sood
Dr. Harold Koenig Director, Center for Spirituality,
Theology and Health: https://spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/index.php/harold-g-koenig-m-d
Dr. Koenig on what spirituality can do for you: https://www.beliefnet.com/wellness/health/2006/05/what-religion-can-do-for-your-health.aspx
Keith Karren – Body, Mind, Spirit:
http://pgrpdf.abhappybooks.com/mind-body-health-keith-j-karren-ph-d-pdf-5716009.pdf
E O Wilson Biodiversity: https://eowilsonfoundation.org/
E O Wilson - PBS on Ants: http://www.pbs.org/program/eo-wilson/
Anthropologist Malinowski: http://anthrotheory.wikia.com/wiki/Bronislaw_
MalinowskiSocial Anthropology - Malinowski: http://scihi.org/bronislaw-malinowski-social-anthropology/
St. Augustine (Catholic source): https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=418
St. Augustine: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine
Konrad Lorenz: https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/scientist/konrad_lorenz.html
Konrad Lorenz: http://www.famouspsychologists.org/konrad-lorenz/
St. Gregory of Nyssa (Franciscan): https://www.franciscanmedia.org/saint-gregory-of-nyssa/
St. Gregory of Nyssa (wikiorg): https://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_of_Nyssa
Neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene: https://www.edge.org/memberbio/stanislas_dehaene
Imants Barušs, psychologist and parapsychologist: http://www.baruss.ca/
Julia Mossbridge, psychologist and parapsychologist: https://noetic.org/profile/julia-mossbridge
https://sharingthesearch.com/tag/j-mossbridge/
https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/julia-mossbridge/profile
Friedrich Nietzsche: http://nietzschecircle.com/
Nietzsche biography: https://www.biography.com/people/friedrich-nietzsche-9423452
Abraham Joshua Heschel: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abraham-joshua-heschel-a-prophets-prophet/
Iroquois:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/1d.asp
Greek Mythology: Apollo and the Oracle of Delphi
https://www.greekmythology.com/Olympians/Apollo/apollo.html
https://www.thoughtco.com/apollo-greek-god-sun-music-prophecy-111902
http://greek-gods.info/greek-gods/apollo/
https://www.coastal.edu/intranet/ashes2art/delphi2/misc-essays/oracle_of_delphi.html
https://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/7_p1.html
https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/pythia-oracle-delphi-001641
https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/pythia-oracle-delphi-001641