Both parts of the "Uncertainty" topic are really informative and interesting. Thanks!

In hypnosis literature there is a famous story of a woman who, during hypnosis, is given a suggestion to take one of her shoes off, put it on the dining room table, and put roses into it. The suggestion she is given directs her to do this at a specific time, I believe it was during a faculty party at 10:00. Further, it was suggested that she would have no memory of the suggestion (hypnotic amnesia).

As the story goes, the hypnotist attends the faculty party that evening, along with the woman he's hypnotized, and at 10:00, she takes off her shoe and begins to arrange roses in it. When the hypnotist asks her what she's doing, she explains that her husband had given her a crystal vase that looks just like her shoe. She's never known what to do with the vase, and it suddenly occurs to her how to arrange flowers in it, and she has to try it before she forgets.

This story sounds very similar to what you are talking about in your post regarding the interpretation of emotions, in that it highlights the meaning-making of the brain. While I agree that the biological materialism you describe as the source of most routine affect variations (e.g., if I'm irritable it's because I'm tired, and didn't have enough protein) is a very important influence, it seems questionalbe to me that it is the predominant factor in understanding and managing emotional response. While there are many, many areas that can serve as argument for this, I'll focus on two: conditioning and hypnosis.

I can condition a dog to respond with fear every time it sees a ball. I can condition a dog to respond with irritability every time it sees a ball. Our conditioning is complex and vast, and has wide-ranging impact on all aspects of our behavior. Quite closely related to conditioning, I can take a suggestible subject (i.e., almost anyone) and cause them to feel fear (purely, and completely psychological). We go in and out of trance all day long, and are influenced by what we experience in trance (both hypnosis and conditioning are learning mechanisms). Therrefore, when I'm irritated, it may very clearly have little or nothing to do with my sleep level, how much I've eaten, or how hot the room is in a situation. It may be a purely learned (psychological) response. Certainly, you can differentiate between learned, mixed, and purely biological affect using tests, should you have the capacity of awareness to do that when you're under the influence of an emotion, which is doubtful (without a lot of practice, and even there, it's sketchy). Yet, it seems very clear to me that, while biological states play an important role, emotions are much more complex than simple biological states. I'm very curious to hear your response!

It is my understanding and perception that Dr Diamond far from presents his case for anger/rage as dogma. Instead it appears Dr Diamond seeks to suggest the importance of anger/rage the stepchild if you will the unwanted, unacceptable of the affects into a realm of acceptability and integration so that it may stand along side other core affects with equal importance and dignity_(See www.tomkins.org institute.com for 8 Core Affects_ What appears to be missed is the wisdom that experience brings that speaks to successful results time and again documented in the therapeutic setting whereby the important learning of both gaining insight , to know
( Diamond ) to own ones experience, access , express , regulate and integrate a range of important affects that include shame and anger fear etc that often due to cognitive shock ( Nathanson ) were paralyzed during childhood. This can be achieved in the therapeutic relationship which can now serve to heal revitalize and restore. A place where a full sway of expression of emotions ( Winnicott ) expressed received and regulated without being a smokescreen for the other.
‘ Ah yes I see the mouse I am terrified I know the magnitude of this reaction this comes from an historical event when. I have learned self compassion for the magnitude of my fear and now I say I can still feel scared but rather than strengthen the emotion I can regulate the degree now to which I am reacting ’.

The historical disavowal of the significance of the impact relationship ( particularly those of primary caregivers , (Miller/Bowlby etc ) can have past and present that created the dangerous suppression and disavowal of our affective system and our understanding of the damage therein remains in its infancy ( Carl Jung ) ( the raging father whose son now disavows his own rage for fear of becoming just like him, thereby denying the existence not only of his murderous rage for enduring such abuse but also appropriate anger in life that has now been sacrificed and instead demonstrates similar traits in life for this very reason and seeks out others by way of projections to transfer this disavowed rage onto ) ( Davinloo )
However much reporting from the minds of the wise and experienced serve to underscore and address this significance in our young field that which science cannot attest to.
This does not exclude science of course however the dogma of science can in no way replace the wisdom and importance of experience.
They may stand along side one another and may be valued equally in their own way.
When conscious awareness of multiple affects can be broken down frame by fame experienced into expressed and regulated with the guidance and participation in the therapeutic relationship then other experiences such as sorrow , loss , and necessary grieving can be encouraged to emerge also when attuned with can lead to interest , hope and the restoration of longing and love.
The disavowed rage that may be carried by a patient combined with the terror of the prospect of experiencing by oneself these necessary affects ( someone will be killed or I will be ) might suggest a focus towards science as a compensatory refuge and safe harbor by way of distracting from the invaluable descent with another into the gut wrenching transformative world of childhood trauma where the grit of all valuable and necessary affective experiences lie.
( Dr Diamond on Mickey Rourke )
The idea that one affect hides behind this or that affect devalues the significance and the value and uniqueness of those particular affects anger shame and fear and pain etc.
The smokescreen is not as much the point, as the importance of valuing the breadth and depth of an expression of a range of affects , broken down piece by piece ( Fosha ) Of course if only anger exists then the paralysis of other affects becomes the result.
We have the right to feel all. An experienced therapist can do much service in the art of healing by way of leading and helping their patient in the tretcherous and healing waters to reclaim all.
No doubt anger is not such an easy affect for many to access. For some it might have meant life or death for a child to express anger, therefore accessing it owning it becomes essential.
For others it might have been the only affect safe to express, other affects being considered too weak,.
When encouraged to express in an appropriate way per Dr Diamond or Steve then patient can experience an affect that can be restored , valued and serve him / her well in life instead of being the beast to be reckoned with or destroyed.
Expression of appropriate anger can bring clarity crystallization, relief from depression from the confines and shackles of shame. It is not enough however it is crucial.
Expression of Shame can bring similar relief when the shackles of only anger has been present. All affects leading to Rome , a necessary acceptance of the vulnerability of loss with compassion and self love at the heart of the matter.
Despite the speed with which the affects are ignited,per Dr Stosny ) the ability to recognize with compassion and thereby control appropriately is completely possible and an invaluable part of the therapeutic treatment.
Unstoppable internally in the moment however through mentalization with compassion all affects are able to be regulated and expressed appropriately.( Fonagy )
Certainly interpersonal therapy promotes the importance of regularly ‘ checking in ‘ with patients and for therapist to ‘wear the attribution ’ of patients anger due to therapists fallibility which is bound to occur.
To not would be negligent of the therapist. The negative transference the repetition of past and present traumas between therapist and patient ( Kohut) must be invited for healing purposes. Anger toward therapist for lack of attunement would be a necessary experience one to support the healing within the transference. A place where a powerful dialogue could ensue where the doctors humanity and vulnerability can serve to heal the dyad. Certainly self doubt human error is essential and a beautiful thing
Emotions do not always come from an historical place, certainly there are multiple sources some outlined here by Dr Stosny, or Steven. In addition , there is also our history, where the tragedy of repressed emotions that speak of lost longings seek a voice where all affects can be valued and restored.
They may stand along side one another and may be valued equally in their own way.

On a scientific note Love at Goon Park the science of affection, by Deborah Blum
certainly addresses Harry Harlows research at Goon Park of baby monkeys and the lack of nourishment milk fed by a wire monkey had for their survival when deprived of the necessary sustaining warmth of the cloth covered wire monkey.
It seems the importance of being ‘ held ‘ had more to do with survival and less to do with being fed milk which when attached to a wire monkey apparently caused baby monkeys to wither and deteriorate. Being breastfed does not appear to matter that much.
Caring that a person is ‘held’ seems to be of far greater significance in these particular studies.

I'm sorry you missed Wittgenstein's point about seeming and reality.

I am a great admirer of Silvan Tomkins for his creativity and genius, even though research has not been kind to his most creative points. However, I believe he, unlike some of his disciples, was intellectually flexible enough to amend his theories to include the obvious evidence of multiple, blended affects and multiple strings of conditioned affects that occur much faster than consciousness.

Dogma is a set of beliefs without scientific verification. The beliefs might be true, but you have no way of knowing that they are true. Quoting the patron saints of the dogma does not give it scientific validity. Citing evidence that does not include the assumptions of the theory is how you rationally discuss it.

We become smarter by testing beliefs against objective evidence, not by reinforcing them endlessly with other unverified beliefs. It is possible to do that with some of the people you quote. Set your intelligence and creativity to citing evidence to support the theories rather than just repeating them. You cannot discover anything about the world or, ultimately about yourself, through self-reflection, due to unavoidable subjective and confirmation biases.

There is a Heisenberg effect in therapy in regard to emotional expression. You do not express an emotion so much as enhance, if not create it. That is the nature of verbal expression and conscious attention. It is doubtful that you or any therapist has ever seen a purely singular emotion, though you have artificially raised the salience of one or two over the others present.

There is a similar Heisenberg effect in regard to "historical" elements. Review the research literature on memory and you will find that it is far more a constructive process than one of recollection. It is more accurate to say that we view the past through the shaded lens of the present than vice versa. But in therapy you can certainly raise the salience of "memories" and confuse them with reality, because it seems as if the sun revolves around the earth.