The easiest method I can offer for something like that is:
The four relationships of being human:
You to yourself
You to others
You to inanimate objects
You to existing
The two fields of magnitude:
Positive
Negative
The two amplitudes of magnitudes:
Reflective
Active
Which could be conceived of by charting akin to the image in the tab, and over time would probably look something akin to a wave or line chart.
[tab]
[/tab]
To explain:
If you feel sad, let’s say, then that would be a negative reflection.
If you feel angry, then that would be a negative action.
If you feel happy, then that would be a positive reflection.
If you feel joy, then that would be a positive action.
There are a grand number of “amplitudes” and “field” magnitudes in between such ranges, and there are others further beyond these (such as euphoria or rage).
The more relationships that are interacted with at once in one emotion, the more complex and uncertain the sensation becomes; meaning, harder to place: specifically if it includes cardinal starting points at the relationship between you and yourself and you and existing and then compounds later emotional sensations between you and yourself and you and others intertwined.
Those are probably the most difficult to sift through because what appears to be the cause is a red herring of the first layers.
So, in a way, the relationships work like multipliers to the values of the magnitudes.
The difference of reflective versus active is a matter of time; shifting from reflection to action, as a transmission of digestion.
The question usually is which type of action will come from which reflection.
This entirely depends on the reflection process of the individual.
Say, Job.
Had he reflected differently, an entirely different response actively would have arose.
Grief, sadness, depression, and the lot, are tools of meditation.
They are only faults when they consume to the point of perpetual inaction; which appears to be the fear of Job’s colleagues - that Job has gone to the point of inaction; into the void of reflection from the negative.
However, Job, in the end, has not done such a thing and instead has simply deeply reflected on the negative as a means of meditating upon his god in gratitude.
Here, Job turns a negative into a form of a bitter sweet positive by attaching grief to gratitude by league of time.
The more meditation upon the negative Job seems to take, the greater his appreciation seems to rise and rise inwardly toward his god for even granting that which he has had the ability to even lose.
Counter example:
Buddha would be described as someone that reflected deeply from the negative until he was able to turn the reflection from the negative into a reflection from the positive.
In other words, he was able to use the reflection from the negative as a method to changing the perspective of what constitutes the negative, and in so doing opened up a wider band of what is positive to him (changed what constitutes the “0” mark between negative and positive).
After this, then the reflection into the positive deeply created his ability to positively act by sharing his insight.
By further example:
Jesus would be an example of someone taking the reflection of the negative and turning it around into a great magnitude of both negative and positive action.
Where Buddha and Job were pacifists in response, Jesus shows action and doing at rapid and radical means.
Keep in mind: “negative” does not mean “bad” in the sense of morally wrong.
It means emotional context; a negative sensation. For instance, Jesus’ outrage at the temple would be a negative action because it was an aggressive action of anger, which is a negative magnitude that caused immediate and responsive unrest.
Anger, as such, can be morally good just as easily as morally bad.
It depends on the ethical context of the situation to make that judgment.
As such, I leave that out of the above method.
Instead, only the impact of the emotion is described.
That would be my offer.
This is my way of determining human behavior in general context.