the hot chocolate recipe is forthcoming, as chocolate is a far more complex ingredient than cocoa, much more than i anticipated. in the mean time, i have a theory about emotions which i would like to share, and have critiqued.

when i refer to emotions in this discussion, i mean to focus on emotional response to present and past, which is separate from emotional anticipation to the future. the scales i refer to exist in two modes. polar scales, like magnetic poles, consist of inverse states, between which is a gray region and a null point. these scales could be represented with positive one to negative one values. cardinal scales, derived from the cardinality of vectors in math (i am looking for a better term), consist of the presence and lack of a state. these scales may be represented in one of two forms. first are scales from one to zero, which could describe states like hot, cold, or light. second are scales from infinity to zero, like size, distance, and other measurable states.

first i would like to propose a polar scale of positive to negative. this is best simply exemplified by good and bad. an action either went well, in which it was at least partially a success, or went poorly, in which is was at least partially a failure. the important element is whether it went the way we desired. this is the primary scale by which we measure the past and present.

directly related to this scale is the scale of importance. this basically is the angular measure of the primary polar scale to any other scale. this is a strange scale to deal with, as the number of possible dimensions in which the scales of meaning exist could be infinite. it might be interesting to figure out how many dimensions of meaning exist, but that is completely beyond the scope of this discussion. basically there are scales which correlate to primary polarity, and there are those that do not.

a second cardinal scale is that of intent. certain times things go as we would like them, other times they askew. this is not parallel to the scale of primary polarity, as although things do not go exactly as we plan, yet may be just as good. this is not to suggest that the scale is entirely perpendicular. excluding the truly masochistic, when things go the way we intend, they can not fully be argued to be bad. when analyzing philosophies with value systems like tao or karma, the intent scale actually has an interesting orientation to primary polarity, in which the poles of primary polarity correspond to the negative pole of intent, and vise versa.

a third polar scale is that of causation. i propose that this be the scale which legal decisions base their punishments upon. this scale has no correlation to the primary polar scale. strangely enough, we rarely make a distinction on this scale when things occur as we intend, but make a broad distinction when things do not go as we intend. the breadth of this distinction seems to be based on the intent scale importance. thus there are sixteen variations of emotional response.

good	import	intent	cause	emotion
good	(un)important	(un)intended	(un)caused	happy
bad	(un)important	(un)intended	caused	sadness and guilt
bad	(un)important	(un)intended	uncaused	anger

it is interesting to not that the spectrum of emotional illness is determined by which responses occur where they should not. depression is any form of misplaced sadness. aggressiveness is the level of importance which creates anger. masochism is misplaced happiness. self destructiveness is the existence of intended bad behavior, often associated with happiness.

i am not happy because what i have written is not important.