Okay, you're both right. Let's be friends/friendly.
ubulele, I get what you're saying. I'm also in the camp that chords do not invoke emotion any more than they create it. I too find the notion ridiculous. But, as is obvious, from only the original post, people have emotional responses to chords. Is it the same kind of response a mother feels when hearing her baby cry? No. But it's probably not too distantly related. We are wired to have differing emotional responses to various sights, smells, (very strong responses to these) and sounds. Do we all have the same responses to sounds? Certainly not, but to say emotional responses to sounds or chords don't exist is surely wrong. My previous post on this thread addresses my thought that trying to create, from emotional response alone, a language universal enough to use in notation is unrealistic. Interesting idea, though. Maybe there is something to the commonality of emotional responses to chords, or chord progressions (slightly more likely). But, it's all learned from life experience, not pre-programmed commonality. My response will be different than Jim's. So, although he may create a way to notate it, it will only work perfectly for him. And the less like Jim we are, the less useful it will be, for each of us. Make a commonly useful language of it? Ridiculous. But, say it's a bad idea? Just as wrong.
By the way, the equal temperament was developed to deal with sound, not emotion. You're right it's intended to sort of balance out the way music will sound when played in different keys. But, it's not perfect. Plus, our instruments are even more imperfect than equal temperament. So, big can of worms there.