There’s good reason to distinguish feeling and emotion as valuational and expressive modes of affect, because affect may be inner-directed or outer-directed. Receptiveness of affect is different than affected response. (The lexicality of ‘feeling’ is a very nebulous folkism.)

I’m hoping that the following is tenable:

• regarding open feeling with phenomenality as responsive (of Self) receptiveness (by self) through affect which values the affective phenom-enality. Feeling, at best, wants to be appreciative. Of course, this is an aesthetic sense of ‘feeling’. Ordinary feeling (in this sense) tends toward aesthetic appreciation.
• regarding open e-motion with phenomenality as receptive (S) responsive-ness (s) through affect which shows affected phenomenality. Emotion,
  at best, wants to be effective. Of course, this is a motivational sense of ‘emotion’. Ordinary emotion (in this sense) tends toward effective action.

The point here is that affect is part of oneSelf, which should be understood as potentially S/s differentiated in experiences that are inner-directed and outer-directed—which reminds me of philosopher John Searle’s “direction of fit” irt world-to-word vs. word-to-world experiences; and which might remind anyone of the common difference between introversional and extraversional dispositions.