According to current research, what we experience as "emotions" are actually the flow of very specific chemical compounds in the body, variations of "peptides" that bind to specific receptors on the cells triggering cascading responses in the cell. The limbic system, which is also considered the "paleomammilian brain" is the source of most of this emotional-biochemical production. It includes the amygdala a focus of fear based responses - fight, flight or freeze - and the hypothalumus, among other organs. Furthermore, even before nervous systems evolved, cells developed this chemical communication system. It kind of makes sense when you appreciate how important "communication" is to evolution and the cooperation of organisms in general. Much easier to have chemicals in fluids flowing around cells rather than having only solid structures that relay "electrical impulses" - the latter is much, much more complicated (although, there are a lot of biochemicals involved with those "electrical impulses" as well).
As noted above, there is a vast complexity to this fluid dance of chemicals in the body, interacting with all kinds of different cells and causing both local and global responses, some of it is automatic, but as it is becoming clear, much of it Is being mediated by our thoughts and beliefs. The "placebo" effect is a perfect example.
Just like some drugs people consume from an external source, the body can get addicted to its own biochemical patterning and that includes neural pathways and connections/associations. That is why we "seek out" (more or less consciously) the same types of experiences over and over again resulting in the same biochemical responses in our bodies.
But again, there is extraordinary plasticity with a lot of that. Consider just how often someone really is capable of "changing their mind" - that's not just in an abstract way, there are tangible, physical changes that take place in the brain when new ideas or concepts are integrated and old ones, old linkages and associations are broken up.
Personally, I've been working with this understanding for about six or seven years now. I feel I've become quite capable of mediating most of my emotional states at will - and - generally choose to be in a kind of calm state most of the time - neither depressed or over excited, just "at ease" with myself and my circumstances.
At the same time, I am still learning in this area so although my "intuitions" have been bringing certain considerations to mind, certain conceptual ways of framing my ideas, I'm still looking for scientific research to confirm my suspicions, about which chemicals are being associated with which types of "emotional experiences". For instance, I read recently that feelings of "lust" are seen now to be driven by testosterone and estrogen, feelings of "falling in love" are being driven by dopamine, adrenaline, and endorphins (I think? Maybe something else there but the article is not right in front of me), and then "long-term attachment" is driven or reinforced more by oxytocin and vasopressin.
For more details you might want to take a look at "Molecules of Emotion" by Candace Pert. You can also see more of my theoretical musings at http://thebluemoonturtleblog.blogspot.com/.
I do agree with the original poster though. For whatever reasons, people can get very touchy about talking explicitly and "rationally" about emotions. I attribute this, again, in a "theoretical" way to the limbic brain wanting to maintain control over the more evolved parts of the brain, i.e. the cerebellum and frontal cortex. And if we let our emotions continue to run things unconsciously, then I feel we will not experience all the greater possibilities of our more highly evolved brains as human beings.
In fact, I feel that is pretty much where we are right now, in society and cultue, still mostly being driven by the limbic brain. Nevertheless, all of Stefan's work is helping to expand the opportunities for people to develop the parts of their brains that are capable of rational thinking, and the internet is doing a wonderful job of accelerating that dissemination process - so maybe, just maybe, we can create a rational culture before we end up irrationally destroying it with the many technologies that we have managed to produce with those same highly evolved brains that we have.
Finally, I'm not saying either that emotions are "bad" - they clearly have a place in the evolution of biological organisms, including human beings. And there are all kinds of ways the brain can process information that is important and even critical to having "intuitions" that might not come through a very methodical, "rational/analytical" thinking process. I do, however, feel we can't rely entirely on our "intuitions/emotions" and have to be willing to get feedback to verify the accuracy of our intuitions, etc. and that there can be a learning process there, a "fine tuning" if you will of intuitions based on that feedback. I think that is also where the internet is so valuable as it allows for "idea/intuition" testing with all kinds of people being involved in the process.
