Attitude is decision maker for love or hate. As attitude is mental construct obviously it is from brain where there is almond organ which even control master gland. Heart express the feeling of mind.

Mahesh Kumar Anjay Kumar Mishra

Hi,

In my opinion, no emotion is generated by heart and every emotion is generated by the active and sub-concious brain. Every emotion is controllable if you know why, how it is getting genrated.

Please see my answer below and do share if you agree or otherwise.

I happened to have published a book called 'What is Love? The Formula for all Relationships:unified theory'

I have proposed a unified theory of love which not only explains love but every other emotion between a person and another person or non-person. I have even proposed a way to measure the emotion feling felt.

Basically, There are just 2 conditions that lead to generation of every emotion. 2 are completelt in our control and the third one can sometimes not be in our control when it is determined by birth. Anyway the third condition only enhances the emotion generated by the first 2 conditions so I will explain those. I will a short excerpt in future with all conditions and share.

First condition is 'Trouble'

Subject 1 referred below is an intelligent person and Subject 2 could be a person or anything else

'Trouble' is defined as the physical or mental work or effort by Subject 1, for, or on behalf of, or because of, Subject 2. Trouble can also be a mental commitment made by Subject 1 to undertake physical or mental work/effort for/on behalf of/because of Subject 2 in the future.

To elaborate, Trouble includes:

1. Trouble, taken voluntarily by Subject 1 for/or on behalf of Subject 2.

2. Trouble, that Subject 1 must take because it is given by Subject 2 or by a third person, (because of Subject 2), or,

3. Trouble that is given to Subject 1 by the circumstances (because of Subject 2).

4. Trouble includes not using the time or money by Subject 1 on alternatives that are available or could be available to Subject 1.

5. Trouble or the physical or mental work/effort by Subject 1 or his mental commitment to future physical or mental work/effort, NEED NOT BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF SUBJECT 2. Trouble can be against the interest of Subject 2, and it will still be called 'Trouble' as per the definition of Trouble. Examples of different kinds of Trouble are below:

Second condtion is Blame, including negative Blame = Thankfulness

Definition: Blame (Includes Negative Blame = ‘Thankfulness’)

‘Blame’ is defined as a considered belief of Subject 1, not just rhetoric blaming, that the 'Trouble' of S1 is deliberate or avoidable. That Trouble is being given / will be given by Subject 2 or Trouble will come upon Subject 1 through a third subject or the circumstances but only because of Subject 2.

Blame, used in relation to the theory, includes negative Blame, which is equivalent to Thankfulness.

Thankfulness is when Subject 1, instead of blaming Subject 2, for the Trouble, is Thankful to Subject 2, for giving the Trouble to Subject 1, or for letting Subject 1 take Trouble for Subject 2.

Additional Clarifications:

· Definition of Blame - "To say or think that someone or something did something wrong or is responsible for something bad happening." (Cambridge dictionary). The definition of Blame under TAB theory is the same as the dictionary meaning, except that ‘something bad happening’ is the Trouble taken by Subject 1. It could be Trouble that Subject 1 fears will have to be taken by Subject 1 because of Subject 2.

· Another noteworthy point is that Subject 1 has three states of thought towards Subject 2 because of whom he must take Trouble.

(i) Blame - When Subject 1 thinks Subject 2 is responsible for his Troubles, he is blaming Subject 2.

Examples of Blame for the Trouble taken for Subject 2:

· Blaming a spouse for not earning enough to support the current lifestyle.

· Blaming a friend who requests bringing a packet from his aunt in flight from a foreign country, shouting at someone indulging in public nuisance and

· Talking behind someone's back to harm him.

(ii) No Blame - When Subject 1 does not think or does not care that Subject 2 is responsible for his Troubles, he is not blaming Subject 2.

Examples of No Blame will include – Taking 'reasonable' Trouble for someone, passing on the salt, when another diner requests, following traffic rules. Here Subject 1 neither Blames nor is Thankful to Subject 2 for the Troubles.

(iii) Thankfulness – It is defined below.

Definition of Thankfulness

‘Thankfulness’ When, instead of Blaming Subject 2 for the Trouble, Subject 1 is Thankful to Subject 2 for the opportunity to take the Trouble for Subject 2, it is called ‘Thankfulness.’

Subject 1 can experience Thankfulness towards Subject 2 for the Troubles, due to:

· the nature of the Trouble, or,

· the nature of the Subject 2 or,

· the nature of his relationship with Subject 2.

An Example of Thankfulness for Trouble:– A mother is almost always Thankful to her child for all the Trouble it gave before birth and after that. The amount of Trouble is almost the maximum possible. However, the amount of Thankfulness to the child for the Troubles is also almost the maximum. Another example would be doing things for someone Subject 1 holds in very high esteem or considers his idol. Subject 1 will be Thankful to Subject 2 for allowing him to take the Trouble. For example, a devotee is Thankful to his God for the Troubles he is taking for his God. Those Troubles may include doing daily prayers, going to shrines, and doing other things specified in his religion.

It is important to note that often, Subject 1 would not even be ready to call all that he does for/because of Subject 2 as 'Trouble.' At times, Subject 1 may get offended to hear that he is taking 'Trouble' for someone he holds so dear in his heart. Subject 1 would instead call what he does as 'duty,' 'care,' 'natural,' 'humble contribution' & the like. Subject 1 is often a mother, a devout person, someone trying to repay his dues or someone with a deep sense of duty. A couple of examples are. Let’s say Subject 2 had helped Subject 1 when Subject 1 was in deep Trouble, and no one else was helping, or Subject 1 is a staunch sect/cult member. Subject 1, in these examples, would not want to call all that he does and all the efforts he does as his ‘Trouble.’ But, as you are aware, Trouble is just the name I have given to represent what I want to convey through a specific definition of the term. The term does not represent its dictionary meaning.

Here is what Liking / Love, Hate and Apathy is: The third condition I mentioned earlier is called PPP or Potential Physical Proximity but That will only enhance whatever the feeling.

TAB Theory of emotions: Definition of positive emotions / Love

If Subject 1 takes Trouble for Subject 2 and does not Blame Subject 2, or is Thankful to Subject 2 for the Trouble, Subject 1 likes/loves Subject 2.

The extent and intensity of the liking/love felt by Subject 1 depend on the amount of Trouble taken, the amount of Blame or Thankfulness for such Trouble, and their Potential Physical Proximity (PPP).

To state it simply assume that the answers to the following questions, and the answers of Subject 1, are as follows:

1. Do you take Trouble for Subject 2? Answer – Yes

2. Do you Blame Subject 2 for the Troubles? Answer – No

In the above case, Subject 1 has positive feelings towards or love towards Subject 2.

TAB Theory of emotions: Definition of negative emotions / Hate

If Subject 1 takes Trouble for Subject 2 but Blames Subject 2 for such Trouble, Subject 1 dislikes/hates Subject 2.

The extent and intensity of the dislike/hate felt by Subject 1 depend on the amount of Trouble taken, the amount of Blame for such Trouble, and their Potential Physical Proximity (PPP).

To state it simply assume that the answers to the following questions, and the answers of Subject 1, are as follows:

1. Do you take Trouble for Subject 2? Answer – Yes

2. Do you Blame Subject 2 for the Troubles? Answer – Yes

In the above case, Subject 1 has negative feelings or hate towards Subject 2.

TAB Theory: Definition of ‘No Emotions’ or Apathy

If ’Subject 1’ does not take any ‘Trouble’ for ‘Subject 2’, then Subject 1 is agnostic towards Subject 2. That means, Subject 1 experiences no positive or negative emotions towards Subject 2.

In such a case, Subject 1 will neither Blame nor be Thankful to Subject 2 since Subject 1 is not taking any Trouble. Remember that the definition of Trouble includes a commitment to take Trouble in future.

‘Potential Physical Proximity’ of the Subjects is immaterial in such a case.

To state it simply assume that the answer to the following questions, and the answers of Subject 1, are as follows:

1. Do you take Trouble for Subject 2? Answer – No

2. Do you Blame Subject 2 for the Troubles? Answer – I do not take Trouble for the Subject

In the above case, Subject 1 has no negative or positive feelings toward Subject 2. Other questions regarding Blame, Thankfulness, and PPP do not matter.

Thanks

I love you or i hate you or i like you whatever it is comes from heart. But to express it or not comes from our mind. Minds rules decisions made by heart.