Does it make a difference why you do what you do?
Would two actions, aesthetically identical, but with polarized intents have the same effect?
Is morality so entrenched in the act of doing something that everything we do is for a reason?
I first experienced this when I tore open a bag. Violently. The plastic bag in question was filthy and not worthy of reuse; so I tore it to prevent it from being used again. My father thought I was angry when I did it and reprimanded me for being angry.
THAT is what I cannot understand. Does tearing=anger? Do aesthetic cues really dictate emotion and thought?
Personally, I believe that actions exist in isolation and its meanings are relevant to context. An action would not express intent for me, I view everything as separate; some things can be put into a gestalt, some things can't, and certainly, there is no way to link everything together.
On the same thread of thought from above, if ripping and tearing always implies anger, would crying always imply sadness?