I’m interested in looking at how normative ideas around personal emotions are reflective of the macro stories around cultural morality. That is, stories around emotions are the micro version of the stories around morality.

The similarity in emotions and morality essentially arises from the simple fact that they are regulators: emotions regulate human action and morals regulate cultures.

The symbiotic relationship is defined downstream like this: morals embed into the emotions through stories and thus regulate individuals. Upstream: emotional stories play out on a macro scale and thus influence cultural morality – something evident through the shift in the Overton Window.

There is a normative element to both emotions and morals. What I should feel. What I should do. What I am interested in looking at is the extent to which normativeness is detrimental. How does having ideas about what one should feel or how cultures should be is actually detrimental because for example it resists what is (which inherently prevents acceptance – acceptance of emotions and acceptance of cultures).

This is more than comparing say Eastern culture with normative ideas built on Western foundation. But rather looking internally at Western culture through normative ideas of what Western culture should be!

It all boils down to this (and this is the topic I’m thinking about):

—> in the same manner that resisting shame (as an emotion) will cause you to create circumstances of further shame, resisting aspects of cultural morality (like conservative ideologies/fascist ideologies) will cause society to conduct itself in circumstances which further those aspects