Within the domain of psychology, no subject is of greater interest and concern than the study of emotion. Unfortunately, investigations in this area have frequently been obscured by the tendency to classify a number of disparate states under the single heading of "emotion". Among these, the most readily distinguished are the emotions of fear, anger, and sexual arousal, in that they appear to be present in other species and serve obvious biological functions. For this reason they might be referred to collectively as natural emotion or, because of their relative phylogenic status, lower emotion. In contrast, ego-related emotion and, specifically, ego-related emotional disorder (e.g., anxiety, depression, suicidal tendencies, etc.) seems present only in man, or at least to any degree, and appears to serve no obvious biological function. This latter classification of emotion might be referred to as human emotion or, because of its relative phylogenic status, higher emotion.

Like the psychical states of pain and pleasure, the emotions of fear, anger, and sexual arousal appear to arise as immediate nonvolitional responses to the perception (or more correctly, the recognition) of entities or events which automatically invoke their occurrence, often to the considerable consternation of the individual experiencing them (or at least when no longer under their immediate influence). Like pain and pleasure, they are comprised of a physiological component (e.g., trembling, adrenaline flow, etc.) and a psychical component experienced as an increased attentiveness and an urge to behave in some relatively specific manner. Also like pain and pleasure, these emotions generally occur for a relatively short duration and, indeed, are usually present for only that period of time during which the stimulus is the immediate focus of attention, whether directly perceived, imagined, or recalled.

While the urges associated with pain and pleasure at times become almost irresistible, the conation associated with lower emotion is of a different nature and is experienced more in the form of a suggestion. As such, even though the occurrence of such emotion is nonvolitional, the behavior which emanates from it is the result of a conscious decision to respond to its urgings.(1)

Perceived objectively, the inherent order in most phenomena (behavior emanating from inorganic and instinctive psychical functions) seems to provide evidence of rational intervention or design. However, with the advent of atomic theory, this order can be accounted for simply as the result of nature repeating itself along a few basic themes (e.g., electrons, protons, and neutrons). Furthermore, the behavior of the human organism which most resembles the orderly stimulus-response behavior of both inorganic matter and instinctive organisms is the relatively stereotyped (orderly) stimulus-response behavior associated with pain and pleasure and lower emotion (programmed motivation). When observed subjectively, far from providing evidence of rational design, the psychical correspondents to these behaviors demonstrate a high degree of arationality and require continual supervision and suppression by the reasoning agent. In many instances, allowing these blind urges (based only upon considerations of a specific moment in time) to dictate behavior can result in disastrous consequences --- e.g., incarceration for desertion (fear), bodily assault (anger), or rape (sexual arousal). Even when not in direct conflict with rational (overall) objectives, programmed motivation not truly essential to one's organic integrity is viewed with a good deal of alienation in advanced (rational) societies. The widespread practices of covering genitalia and conducting sexual behavior in private are simply too pervasive and too strictly enforced to be accounted for strictly in terms of custom or tradition.(2) Instead, it is proposed that there is a subconscious recognition in rational beings (rational is a quantitatively relative term and determined not only by innate potential but by culture as well) of psychical functions which are remnants of a pre-conscious or less conscious (less rational) evolutionary heritage --- of functions which might be described as arational, blind, stupid, mechanical, etc.

That the urgings of programmed motivation function devoid of any rational considerations is not lost on those who seek to obtain information from an unwilling captive by employing methods of physical torture. Because the opposing motivation usually arises from more comprehensive considerations (e.g., honor, integrity, love of others) closely associated with higher emotion (the need to maintain a sense of self-value), one might tend to regard conflict of this type (arational-rational) as merely a conflict between differing types of need. However, every visit to the dentist is accompanied by a similar dilemma, in which physical pain provides the motivation for both sides of the conflict. In this instance the conflict would arise between the less rational objective of avoiding immediate and momentary intense pain and a more rational objective of avoiding less intense pain over long periods of time and possibly only in the distant future.

Clearly, rationality, as most of us conceive or the term, is not determined by the type of need (physical, intellectual, or emotional), but by the comprehensiveness of the conception upon which it is based. If we consider programmed motivation as merely a type of perception distinguished only by the fact that it originates in the organism (although usually triggered by the environment), then most conflict of the arational-rational type would seem to arise between an actual or imminent perception and a conception (mental models of perception existing in imagination).

The foregoing observations and inferences drawn from them would seen to support the contention that the universe (specifically the behavior of inorganic matter and lower organisms) functions from arational impulse. The order may be attributed to limitations in unevolved psychical functions which lack the capacity to be aware of alternatives based upon comprehensive conceptions. This contention is further supported by the blind gropings of the evolutionary process (vestigial remains of countless extinct species, which suggest trial and error rather than long-range planning) and by the apparent indifference of natural processes to the value of rational beings (e.g., the 1976 earthquake in China in which 655,000 lost their lives).(3) It would also be consistent with the premise of evolutionary theory that more complex functions evolved from simpler functions.

Since it is likely that instinctive behavior is also triggered by single specific events and functions devoid of any overall considerations, it is unlikely that the survival of lower organisms can be attributed to an overall "will to survive." Instead, it is more likely that survival is simply the cumulative effect of various independent conations to respond to immediate stimuli, but with no conscious realization of survival as an objective. Since even humans often have difficulty in conceiving of their own deaths (e.g., belief in life hereafter), referring to a lower organism's "will to survive" probably results from our own tendency to anthropomorphize simple responses to stimuli of fear and pain and other instinctive functions.

If this and the preceding contention are correct (and I am certain there are those who will disagree), then the very existence of one's rational mind is likely to be the consequence of a series of arational events (evolutionary gropings, parents' arational sexual impulses, baby's arational impulse to cry when hungry, etc.). This results in the eerie realization that the human mind may well constitute a minuscule island of reasoning in a veritable ocean of arationality. It would further account for why so many individuals in modern societies (where it is increasingly difficult to avoid questioning traditional belief systems) are so frequently overwhelmed by the sensation that there is no meaning (no rational "why") to life. Indeed, this very phenomenon itself constitutes further evidence in support of the foregoing contention.

A primary need in Homo Sapiens is the need for an adequate sense of self-value. This conclusion is based upon my own psychical observations see (Is A Science...) and frequent instances in which human beings override all but irresistible urges to avoid pain and even death to attain or maintain an adequate sense of self-worth (e.g., Evel Knieval). Such instances serve as indisputable evidence of the presence of a new type of need not evident elsewhere in the organic realm (or not to such an extraordinary degree) which at times actually functions in direct opposition to one's organic survival.

Events which initiate behavior the objective of which is a long-term and overall sense of self-value, in contrast to events which initiate behavior the objective of which is the fulfillment of more immediate biological needs, are not simple stimuli which fulfill pre-established criteria. Rather innumerable events are processed, evaluated, and amalgamated into complex and often abstract concepts which serve as basic criteria for that particular individual's conception of what constitutes a valuable being (e.g., honor, integrity, duty, courage, purposefulness, responsibleness, achievement, artistic ability, intelligence, recognition, personal or sexual attractiveness, wealth, power, glory, religious dedication, etc.). Because these criteria are largely determined by reasoning, the priority placed on specific concepts as well as the determination of what they imply is highly individualized. In any event, there is little doubt that they constitute rational objectives (based upon amalgamations of data) or at least constitute objectives which are more rational than the short-term objectives of programmed motivation. While there are qualifications(4), in most affluent societies all but a very small amount of human activity associated with biological needs is committed to the need for an adequate sense of self-worth (higher emotion).

The failure to appropriately respond to programmed motivation can result in a disruption of one's organic integrity, so too, the failure to appropriately respond to higher emotional need can result in emotional disruption (loss of self-value) accompanied by various emotional reactions (e.g., anxiety, depression, suicidal tendencies, etc.). Because these reactions are highly individualized attempts to classify them have been only moderately successful. In order to circumvent these difficulties, I have chosen simply to define emotional disorder as individualized responses to various degrees of success or failure in maintaining an adequate sense of self-value.(5) Negative theory is simply a theory of emotional disorder as so defined.