Not me either
Still, we can all think of examples of people who thrive and are very happy under the most adverse conditions (the opposite is also the case). So, it would seem that people's capacity for happiness is, at the very least, extremely elastic: i.e it's not completely bound up in external conditions.
Regarding the query about unconditional sadness, well, if one chooses to be unhappy as a result of one's expectations not being met, this defines them as different states, does it not?
I'm not suggesting that people should be blissed out regardless of the situation, BTW. It's certainly appropriate to feel grief and sadness in the event of, say, someone close to you dying. In fact, being aware of one's own responses is probably necessary in order to understand one's response is a passing thing, i.e it's conditional.
Thanks for the conversation.
You are talking about an area of psychology that is getting a lot of attention lately, due to the PTSD issues with soldiers. The area is psychological resiliency. Things are always linked to external and internal events and interactions. When we can accept this reality, the conversation then shifts to what people do in response to external events to psychologically thrive. A better understanding of those CONDITIONAL variables (as opposed to the nice-feeling notion of "unconditional") allow us better able to manage our internal and external environments so that we can continue to thrive.
Hope all is well for you!