Scientifically, emotion is just a mental reaction in the form of a release of some type of neurotransmitter in response to stimuli. However, with logic and science set aside, I wonder if the emotion can come first and justification second. Example. I woke up this morning after a late night of catching up on school work. I was a bit tired as always (restlessness is ever present), but I also felt unnecessarily upset. No sound reason behind it, after all I had just woken up. No upsetting dream that I could recall. I went to bed fairly happy, pleased at best. So the question remains: why was I so unnecessarily upset? Cognitive dissonance swiftly on the rise led to the assignment of an explanation, but I question its relevance. It all seems a bit trivial. Emotion first. Justification second. The explanation that my subconscious cleverly stitched together would normally suffice, but not today. Not with the possibility of so many interchangeable emotional reactions to this one stimulus that has occurred a multitude of times.
I've always been a deeply emotional person, allowing myself to feel the highest of highs and the lowest of lows, but this has led to an awareness of the dangers associated with such freedom. What goes up must come down. In the present, I find it increasingly difficult to allow myself happiness because I know what’s on the other side of it. Some may term it chronic disappointment and perhaps I focus too much on logic and intellect for my own good, but it’s led to new barriers and defense mechanisms against the potential emotional outcomes of circumstance and situation. Primarily, I’m much more guarded than before. I let others' opinions have less effect on me. I don't dive blindly into friendship or commitments. I'm more aware of the emotional effects events embed.
When situations play out similarly to those I've previously encountered, it’s natural to expect a similar outcome both literally and emotionally. Essentially, I’m trying to predict the future using my past. Sometimes the process is applicable and other times it isn't. My weakness comes in the form of differentiating between the two. Just because a situation is similar doesn't mean it’s going to play out in the same manner, but it's a possibility. Despite that weakness, I've learned from my past experiences how to identify cues people give off both intentionally and unintentionally. I’m decently good at recognizing these cues; where I struggle is listening to the conclusions I've logically conjured and setting emotion aside. I strongly believe in the relevance and beauty of pure human emotion, but I also understand the consequences involved in not having a very tight grasp on them.
Few, if any, positive things result from letting emotion get the best of us. I can recall far too many times when I've been beyond the boundaries of pissed off and words quickly regretted escaped my lips before my mind could lock them away. There is a time and a place to express feelings of anger, disagreement, and even adoration. But I strongly, strongly suggest that such things are said after the emotional high has ceased. That way you know exactly what you are saying and even though you may not know the response you will get, you have secure reasoning for why you said it.
The same premise applies to actions. If we're placed in a high-pressure situation and a wave of fear sweeps over us, we cannot cower in the face of the challenge. We must acknowledge the feeling, adapt, and act. Emotions are ceaselessly beautiful in the purest form, but granting them the power to run our life is a mistake. From my personal experiences, even keel is the way to go. Emotions run deep, but logic runs deeper. Control is key.
