Today, a pandemic category error: the use of feelings to confuse cases, the confusion of emotionality with rationality, and not understanding how the two can, and must, go together.
Announcements:
My most recent podcast was Self-Authority & the Hero’s Journey and offers a compelling definition of self-authority (by request!), and connects the concept to the hero’s journey using examples from Star Wars, The Matrix, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
“Did you have a good life when you died? Enough to base a movie on?” – Jim Morrison
Also, the next introduction to Developmental Astrology course is here.
What if your astrological chart could reveal not just who you are, but who you have the potential to become?
Registration is now open for From Personality to Development, my 12-week Developmental Astrology course beginning January 13, 2027.
Learn to interpret Vedic astrology charts as maps of human development, revealing personality patterns, developmental challenges, and opportunities for growth and transformation.
Register before January 1 and use code EARLYBIRD to save $100 on tuition.
What emotion essentially is, I would argue we cannot know, but one way in which it functions, is as information.
It tells us that something has registered within the system. We may feel fear, anger, shame, relief, attraction, grief, resentment, or aversion. Each response reveals something consequential about the encounter between our organization and present conditions.
But emotion does not interpret itself.
Fear establishes that danger has been registered. It does not, by itself, establish that danger is externally present. Anger may indicate violation, obstruction, humiliation, helplessness, threatened identity, or the frustration of desire. Resonance may indicate recognition, familiarity, longing, projection, or relief. The emotional signal is real. Its meaning remains an open question.
Emotion becomes an argument when the existence or intensity of a feeling is used to establish a conclusion outside emotion’s jurisdiction.
“I feel afraid” becomes “You are behaving dangerously.”
“That boundary hurts” becomes “The boundary is wrong.”
“This interpretation resonates deeply” becomes “This interpretation is true.”
“I feel accused” becomes “You accused me.”
“Your claim made me angry” becomes “Your claim is harmful.”
Each statement may ultimately prove accurate. People do behave dangerously. Boundaries can be punitive or inappropriate. Accusations can be disguised as questions. Ideas can stimulate real hurt.
The problem is not the conclusion itself. The problem is the unexamined movement through which the emotional response is treated as sufficient evidence for it.
From Experience to Conclusion
Several distinct events are compressed when emotion becomes argument.
First, something happens.
Second, an emotional response occurs.
Third, the response is interpreted.
Fourth, the interpretation becomes a claim about external reality.
Fifth, the claim may become a moral judgment or demand.
The entire sequence can unfold almost instantaneously:
You did not respond to my message. I felt anxious. My anxiety means you were withdrawing. Your withdrawal means you do not value the relationship. Therefore, you have treated me badly and must reassure me.
Any part of this interpretation may be correct. But the anxiety itself establishes only that the unanswered message activated anxiety. It does not independently establish the other person’s intention, the condition of the relationship, the moral meaning of the delay, or the response now required.
Those questions require additional information.
When the sequence remains collapsed, interpretation is experienced as perception. The person does not experience themselves as having inferred that the other person withdrew. They experience withdrawal as what they directly encountered. Challenging the inference can then seem like denying the experience itself.
This is how ordinary disagreement becomes an argument about emotional legitimacy.
One person says, “I wasn’t withdrawing. I was working.”
The other hears, “Your anxiety was not real.”
The anxiety was real. The proposed explanation may still have been wrong.
Development requires preserving both facts at once.
Feelings Are Evidence of What?
The phrase “feelings are valid” is useful when it means that feelings exist and deserve to be acknowledged rather than denied, mocked, or punished. It becomes confusing when validity is allowed to migrate from the feeling to every conclusion attached to it.
A feeling is direct evidence of an internal event.
It may also provide indirect evidence about external conditions. Fear sometimes tracks danger. Anger sometimes tracks violation. Discomfort sometimes tracks coercion. Relational unease sometimes registers a pattern before the mind can articulate it.
But indirect evidence must be interpreted. Its reliability depends upon context, history, regulation, perception, and competing information.
A smoke alarm provides real information when it sounds. The sound establishes that the alarm has been activated. It does not establish whether the cause is a house fire, burned toast, steam, dust, or a failing sensor. The alarm should not be ignored merely because false alarms are possible; nor should every alarm be treated as proof that the building is burning.
Emotion functions similarly. It deserves attention without being granted unlimited authority. The appropriate question is not whether the feeling is valid. It is what the feeling is valid evidence of.
