Cognition and Human Emotion

• Responses to First Learning about Affect Theory by Jim Duffy a.k.a. J.C.D., 2/28/97
  • (...)
    
    • Intellect and Affect by Vick Kelly, 3/7/97
      
      

Vick......Good input! First, I have never read anything by Tompkins and for that matter Iam not sure if he/she is male or female. As I have posted before the philosophical underpinnings of my understanding of human condition is steeped heavily Edvard Husserel (father of modern day phenomemology), primarily Sartre's brand of existentialism, and Martin Hiediger's comments regarding the prevailing moods of modern man/woman. My counseling techniques draw heavily from the concepts espoused by Ellis in my time (sixties) known as Rational Emotive Therapy, In addition, I depend heavily on many of the concepts presented by Sartre particularly regarding the construct of the consciousness and the use of good faith and authenticity in the decision making process. Finally, my range is mostly very directive to confrontive and this developed mostly from my experience as a therapist,........................................................I would suggest that Tompkins read a lot of Sartre and Husserel in the development of his/her theories. I disagree with the need for emotion/affect as both a necessary and sufficient precondition for learning to take place (integration). I do agree that affect may well be a "trigger" when it comes to an emotional integration of a concept which would fall more into the intensity or passion category. In my mind these are two seperate and distinct processes, if you will, the cognitive being the receptor and processor and the affective sort of earmarking or priortizing this input/information. For example, input regarding survival(for example, horsemanship of a North American Plains Indian) would be heavily earmarked by the memory with affective components. So a young tribal nomadic Indian would process input regarding mistakes made and good techniques heavily with affect so as to intensify the recall related to this survival function (horsemanship/equestrianship). Wheras, techniques related to social interaction may be considerably farther down on the "food chain" relative to the associated affect. I see the reverse of what Tompkins is presenting as true. The processing techniques being number one (cognition) and the affective component being number two (emotion) and is more of a modulator effecting intensity of recall but not recall itself. I heavily reference Sartre's BEING AND NOTHINGNESS here. ..................................................................Be that as it may, we are on a good track here relative to a good debate on this issue or Cognition vs Affect and the differential roles these concepts play in our understanding of human condition. ..............................I look forward to your response.........Ed

• Independence of affect and cognition by Don Nathanson, 3/8/97
  • Projection and Interpretation by Ed Riemann, 3/9/97
    • Read the book by Don Nathanson, 3/10/97
      • Dan by Ed Riemann, 3/11/97
      • Get On With Business by Bored, 5/17/97