Kindle has
Marston’s book
https://www.amazon.com/gp/r.html?C=O5ID2HJ90BI3&K=1NQSKT011MZDD&M=urn:rtn:msg:2020120219322809304a7dbf814aefafcf75a3d490p0na&R=JUCH13G8QAQO&T=C&U=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fdp%2FB004SN1UTA%2Fref%3Dpe_385040_118058080_TE_M1DP&H=ZIDATONC9X0KZMWTFMGAKA6JJMKA&ref_=pe_385040_118058080_TE_M1DP
Price 7.49
645 pages of mind numbing prose
From the book
Emotion is a complex unit of motor consciousness, composed of psychonic impulses representing the motor self, and of psychonic impulses representing a motor stimulus; these two psychonic energies being related to one another, (1) by alliance or antagonism; and, (2) by reciprocal superiority and inferiority of strength.
A primary emotion may be designated as an emotion which contains the maximal amount of alliance, antagonism, superiority of strength of the motor self in respect to the motor stimulus, or inferiority of strength of the motor self in respect to the motor stimulus.
Emotions are complex motations, formed by conjunctions of various types between the motor self and transient motor stimuli. It is suggested that the possible types of conjunction constitute a continuous series, wherein each unit represents a quality of emotional consciousness just noticeably different from the emotions most closely resembling it, which lie adjacent to it, on either side, in the total series. At certain nodal points, in this emotion series, there seem to appear definite emotions which represent clear cut types of unit characters of conjunction, between the motor self and the motor stimulus. These nodal emotions are not modified by the admixture of modifying emotional qualities from other adjacent emotions in the series.
There seem to be four such nodal points in the entire emotion circle, and the four emotions occurring at these points may conveniently be termed primary emotions.
The names which I have ventured to select for the four primary emotions in the above integrative analysis were chosen to meet two requirements. First, the commonly understood meaning of the word employed must describe, with as great accuracy and completeness as possible, the objective relationship between motor self and motor stimulus which was to be conceived of as the integrative basis for the primary emotion in question. Secondly, the name chosen for each primary emotion must suggest the experience in question, as it is observed introspectively in everyday life. Another minor consideration which entered into the choice of names for primary emotions was the advantage of new terms not already weighted with dissimilar affective meaning of literary origin.
No matter how clearly one may define in objective terms words such as “fear”, “rage”, etc., the previous connotation which an individual reader may have attached to these words, as a result of life-long learning, will continue reflexly to come to mind each time the term is used.
(I) Compliance is the name suggested for the primary emotion located at “C” in Figure 3. The dictionary definition[18] of the verb “comply” is: “1. To act in conformity with. 2. To be complacent, courteous.” Both these meanings of compliance (“the act of complying”) seem rather aptly to characterize the integrative relationship indicated at “C” on the diagram. The motor stimulus, which is antagonistic and of greater intensity than the motor self, evokes a response of diminution of the motor self, designed to readjust the self to the stimulus. The motor stimulus is permitted by this response, to control the organism, in part and for the time being, antagonistically to the motor self. In the course of such a response, the motor self certainly acts “in conformity with” the motor stimulus. In its final adjustment, the self may be said to be “complacent” with respect to control of the organism by its antagonist. Introspectively, the word “compliance” seems to suggest, to a great majority of the several hundred persons whom I have asked, that the subject is moving himself at the dictates of a superior force. There is no difficulty arising from the use of this word to designate emotion in literature, since “compliance”, in its literary usage customarily signifies a type of action rather than the emotion accompanying the action.
(II) Dominance is the name suggested for the primary emotion indicated at “D” on the diagram of integrative relationship. “To dominate”, according to the dictionary means: “1. To exercise control over. 2. To prevail; predominate.” The integrative situation described by dominance (“the act of dominating”) is chiefly characterized by victory of the motor self over an antagonist of inferior intensity. The motor self obviously “prevails.” and “predominates” over its phasic antagonist throughout this integrative situation. The motor self “exercises control over” the final common path and hence it “exercises control over” the behaviour of the organism, removing environmental obstacles to the pattern of behaviour dictated by means of its own superior reinforced power. Thus the total objective situation, provided our integrative analysis is correct, is fairly described by the term “dominance”. Introspectively, dominance suggests to all persons of whom I have inquired, a superiority of self over some sort of antagonist. The word “dominant” has been used most frequently in literature to describe an “aggressive”, “strong-willed” type of personality or character. This seems rather in accord with the proposed use of the word than otherwise.
(III) Inducement is the name suggested for the primary emotion indicated at “I” on Figure 3 “To induce”, according to the dictionary is: “1 To influence to act; prevail upon. 2. To lead to.” The integrative situation for which the term “inducement” is proposed consists primarily of a strengthening of the motor self in order more effectively to facilitate the passage of a weaker motor stimulus across the common psychon. The motor self, in such a relationship to its weaker ally, certainly “influences” the motor stimulus by facilitation to “the act” of traversing the final common path. If, as we shall see later, it frequently happens that the motor stimulus is too weak to win its way alone to efferent discharge, then the motor self truly “leads” its weaker ally across the synapse, “prevailing upon” it, meantime, to facilitate the passage of the stronger motor self impulses. Introspectively, inducement (“the act of inducing”) indicates to a majority of the subjects asked, a process of persuading someone, in a friendly way, to perform an act suggested by the subject. This meaning, if expressed in bodily behaviour would be very close to the expected behaviour result of the integrative relationship already described. The subjects’ emphasis upon the “friendliness” of the persuasion is very significant in making clear the nature of inducement as a primary emotion. The nature of the integrative relationship would necessitate perfect alliance between the interests of inducer and induced throughout the entire response. The power of inducement in evoking alliance from the induced person lies entirely in the extent to which the inducer is able to serve the other’s interest, while initial weakness in the person “induced” is the element which calls forth increase of strength from the inducer. The word “induce” in literary usage, like the word “compliance”, has been employed, for the most part, to describe a certain type of behaviour, in which one individual persuades another person to do something which the first individual desires him to do Little use, if any, has been made of the term “inducement” in designating emotional states of consciousness.
(IV) Submission is the name suggested for the primary emotion represented at “S” in Figure 3. The dictionary defines the verb “to submit” as meaning: “1. To give up to another. 2. To yield authority or power; to surrender. 3. To be submissive.” Submissive is defined as “docile”, “yielding”, “obedient”, “humble”. The integrative situation to which the term “submission” is applied consists, in essence, of a decrease in the strength of the motor self to balance a corresponding superiority of strength in the motor stimulus. In assuming this relationship, the motor self might certainly be described as being “humble” and “yielding”. The motor self, in essence, is “giving up to” its stronger ally a portion of itself. After the motor self has completed its response as far as decreasing its own volume goes, it continues, as a weaker ally, to be “docile” and “obedient” in rendering facilitation to its stronger ally in their common path. This continued rendering of alliance to the motor stimulus might well be described as “yielding” to the authority or power of its stronger ally, while the continuance of a motor self to render such facilitation as weaker ally throughout the persistence of the relationship seems aptly characterized as being “submission”. The bodily behaviour to be expected from this type of integration would be characterized as that of an obedient child toward a loving mother. Introspective records on the question of what suggestion is conveyed by the word “submit” reveal that the essence of “submission” to nearly all subjects, is voluntary obedience to the commands of the person in authority. With women subjects, the additional meaning of mutual warmth of feeling between the subject and the person submitted to is introspectively present when the submission is thought of as rendered to a loved mother, or to lover of the same or opposite sex. The element of mutual friendliness (represented by alliance in the integrative picture), does not appear in the majority of male reports concerning the introspective suggestion evoked by the word “submission”. This is unfortunate, but I have not been able to find any other word adequately covering the objective description of this emotion which, at the same time, would also include the introspective meaning of mutual warmth of feeling between the person submitting and the person submitted to. The word “submit”, as a name for the primary emotion designated, is intended to convey emphatically this meaning of pleasantness experienced in the act of “submission” by the person submitting. Literary use of the word “submission” has followed rather closely the integrative meaning as reported by my subjects. “Submission”, in literary parlance, customarily indicates a passive yielding, one to the other, yet not necessarily with any great amount of pleasantness in the submission exacted. Perhaps, this limitation found in both introspective and literary connotations of the word “submission” indicates that the connection between submitting to a lover and submission to a person of superior power (which is submission closely akin to compliance) is not found properly developed in our present civilization and its literary records.
