What would it look like if a human had no emotional restraint ? And why do we most people consider that to be bad despite every human having emotions ?
Because theyâve been suppressing emotions so long (due to parenting, culture, a lot of assumptions, peer pressure, media, etc.) that when they do a thought experiment, they know intuitively that there is a huge backlog. They then imagine it all coming pouring out and they imagine thatâs what it would always be like. They are also not used to having intense emotions without doing something beyond expressing the emotions. So, when they do the thought experiment and think of anger, they think violence must follow.
1 Like
It would look like the prisons being really full of hulk-ish people who never learned how to self-regulate.
It would look like that one human body had no emotional restraint.
I cannot and will not speak for you most people, but to me there is absolutely nothing bad with having no emotional restraint at all. But, of course, this is entirely dependent on how one has learned to express and show their emotions.
In fact, it is entirely healthy to have no emotional restraint at all. After all, every emotion exists for the reason they do.
1 Like
The goal isnât the elimination of emotions, instead the goal is mastering over them.
1 Like
I agree completely.
To me, there is nothing to master over emotions. Emotions just exist as signals, or sign posts, in regards to what is happening and occurring, in Life, and in which direction to follow and proceed.
All one has to really do is just be âawakeâ, as some say, and just be Aware of and notice which emotions arise.
Emotions exist to serve a purpose, once this is well and fully understood, then there is nothing to master âoverâ them, as they are essentially to be used for their very purpose.
1 Like
Sources of information.
Wind up toys. 
Of course not. Who wouldnt want to live in a world where ALL people assault, rape, kill, steal, lie eachother without regard or restraint. Just let it flow like anew does
You are assuming that emotions have to lead to actions, and part of the reason that seems just a given is that we are sitting on so much when it comes out, it will want to act. You start alone or with people you trust and allow expression without words. Youâre imagining, in a kind of thought experiment, that what happens is all that suppression is suddenly released at once. Also, our empathy and fear are core parts of this also. If you suddenly took all the suppression of your anger, all at once, yes, many people would get violent because they are so backed up. But if you are allowing all your emotions to slowly be accepted - which by the way takes time and is not easy - then both empathy and fear prevent violence also. But primarily we get used to these emotions, that we have been trained to suppress.
Again, notice how you saw me say accept emotions and responded to someone else as if I was approving rape and murder.
I assume nothing.
Emotions are your core motivators for taking action, and the question was what if you had no restraints over them. Yes. That precisely means that emotions without restraint will lead to actions.
Which can be quantified at any given time, if by nothing else then in comparison to eachother.
There is no contradiction here. In a no restraint scenario, if you feel more empathy for someone than desire to mug them or kill them then you wont do it.
Does that disprove the point? No. It literally proves that a stronger emotion overwrote a lesser one.
And you are assuming the actions will be violence rather than expression, because thatâs what happens when emotions are suppressed and are not expressed with intensity and people are not used to them. Iâve done this for decades and not alone, all the time, with a likeminded spouse and friends. I am not more likely to be violent. I am less likely and less likely than most people precisely because they arenât used to their emotions and they are sitting on bombs. To be violent I need others to be violent. It doesnât matter how angry I get. Thereâs no threshhold where I have to hit someone. Theyâd have to piss me off and be violent or piss me off with violence aimed at me or someone I care about. It just seems inevitable given the sitting on emotions.
@Nausamedu Which can be quantified at any given time, if by nothing else then in comparison to eachother.
There is no contradiction here. In a no restraint scenario, if you feel more empathy for someone than desire to mug them or kill them then you wont do it.
Does that disprove the point? No. It literally proves that a stronger emotion overwrote a lesser one.
I canât prove this, youâd have to experience it. I can only point out assumptions. I havenât done this alone either. I been in rooms with everyone doing this without violence. Best with sound not words. There is a lot to undo. OK, you donât believe me. But consider that the current situation may be skewing what you think is inevitable and possible. If you consider that, thatâs something. If one moves from Scandanavia to Italy, the amount of emotional expression increases immensely, but Italy actually has less homicides than Scandanavia per capita. Obviously there could be so many factors, but again, I canât prove, I can only see if people might question their assumptions. The normal range of volume of voice and sounds in emotional expression are much greater in Italy. A Swede speaking like an Italian might at dinner to his family is probably extremely upset. How much further can one allow the expression of feelings wihtout it leading to violence.
Imagine what it is like for me to be told that given my allowing emotions to express and regularly and in relationship to a spouse who also does this and with friends who also do this, we should have had more violence. I can only tell you that I have seen my loved ones express rage (and all the other emotions) at levels I have not seen anywhere else except right before violence and we have not hit or raped each other. Why? because we are used to it. We slowly explored this to see if all this was really necessary. To be split against yourself.
So, when you say like it is a law of nature that if we do what we have done we must be violent, I can only shake my head and say no. I understand that this is not convincing. I just hope youâll spend a moment considering. Thatâs it.
You are describing what would happen if people who have been suppressed suddenly decide to just express everything right now and with people who have no idea what is happening. All that back up and the fact that we do think anger must connect to action at a certain level, yup, those things will happen.
And given the incredible pressure from rage, thatâs likely to come pouring out first without any balance from other emotions.
But it doesnât have to be like that. We donât have to be split against ourselves, despite what the religions and folk wisdom have been telling us for eons.
For me anger does not elicit violence. Specific behavior, violent behavior, would have to be there also. Then the anger will motivate violence - or fear will motivate running away, depending. But only then.
1 Like
Expression is a thinking process. You are vocalizing, justifying, reasoning, mediating. You are talking instead of acting. Expression has nothing to do with unrestrained emotions.
Again, i dont think you understand what unrestrained emotions mean.
The question was not about being more honest with your emotions, about being more expressive with your emotions, about not bottling them up.
The question was whether or not there needs to be a restraint on them, and it doesnt seem like anyone in this thread truly understands what emotions are and how deep they go in regards of control over actions.
No. All im saying is that what you are talking about is not raw emotion.
You are talking about a freeflow state BETWEEN your rational and emotional halves, much like composing music. You make use of both halves of your brain and all areas to achieve harmony and express. You dont just feel, you create harmony between the logical and the emotional. You dont restrain the flow, you only direct it.
That is a very freeing, uplifting experience, a catharsis. A process of mental cleaning and re-balancing. Sometimes even borderline enlightenment.
And it also has nothing to do with letting your raw, unrestrained emotions take control.
I understand what you mean and are getting at.
It (at least seems like) you dont understand what i am getting at. Emotions are like paint. When filtered, directed, diluted, harmonized, they express a one of a kind level of unique beauty that resonates. Creations which have a soul of their own and speak for themselves despite being silent statues and paintings.
I dont think it needs any deep explanations to understand that there is a difference between that, and chugging that 1l paint can at someoneâs head.
Emotions on their own are not expressive. They are instinctive, extreme, and in most settings violent or destructive since they are only ever able to singularly work through themselves without self-awareness or thought.
Apart from the philosophical interest on this question, I guess there are also biological reasons for the restrain in the emotions. If one gets too emotional at old age, the risk of heart attack is high.
The question was, and still is, âDo human emotions need to have restraints?â
So, emotions like;
Joyful,
Happy,
Excited,
Loving,
Peaceful,
Amazed, and
Inspired,
for example, to you, they need to be restrained, correct?
Also, emotions like;
- Anger.
- Emptiness.
- Frustration.
- Inadequacy.
- Helplessness.
- Fear.
- Guilt.
- Loneliness.
for example, do not need to be restrained and can be expressed in positive or assertive ways. And, for a Truly healthy lifestyle, they are best not restrained at all, recognised, accepted, and then expressed in positive ways, always.
And, conversely, in a no-restraint scenario, if you feel less empathy for someone than desire to protect them, help them, or guide them, then you also wonât do it.
Does this prove the point?
Absolutely EVERY emotion, which is said to be about 450 of them, is an actual part of being a human being. ALLOWING each and every emotion to ârise upâ and then recognise each one, take notice of which one it is, exactly, accepting the very reason why it ârose upâ, and then accept them all for what they are and for what they are showing, exactly, is, well to me, far, far better than âtrying toâ restrain them. They are only going to âbuild upâ anyway, until one day they will just âexplode outâ in ways that one will regret.
Noticing each and every emotion, and then âusingâ all of them to show you what is actually happening and occurring and from which way to proceed forward, instead of âtrying toâ restrain them, is HOW one leads a far more healthy and stable life, and also HOW the Truly Peaceful and Harmonious world everyone wants can and will come-to-be.
Will you inform âusâ of how one could restrain emotions, exactly?
What does ârestraining emotionsâ meant or refer to, exactly, to you?
So, what are âemotionsâ, exactly, to you?
And, what do you even mean by âhow deep emotions go in regards to control over actionsâ, exactly?
âThoughtâ is what actually controls all mis/behavior, or what you might be referring to as âactionsâ here, and not âemotionsâ. Emotions, however, obviously have an influence in regard to thought, itself. But, since all thought exists solely because of what a body has Previously Experienced, if an individual has had a good and Right upbringing only, then when, let âusâ say, the emotion anger or frustration âarisesâ within a body, which it enivitably will living in this âcurrent worldâ, when this sbeing written, then that individual will just express how âthey are feelingâ and thus express that anger and/or frustrated emotion, in a Truly good or Right behavior. They do this by not ârestrainingâ those emotions but by first recognising and accepting those emotions, and then by expressing them in Truly respectful, assertive, and peaceful ways.
How do you distinguish between so-called âraw emotionâ and just âemotionâ itself?
To me you appear to think or believe that say âangerâ, for example, can only come out in one way only. Is this correct?
If yes, then in âwhat wayâ is that, exactly?
But, if no, then, let âusâ say, âangerâ can come out, or be shown, in âmany different waysâ, right?
If, for example, one already has come to KNOW âwho âIâ amâ, from which that One can and does have absolutely full control over each and every emotion and thought, then there is no such thing as any emotion taking control, nor even any thought taking control. That One is always in control.
Also, and by the way, a human body cannot express nor show emotion only. The human body behavers or misbehaves from thought. It is thought that actually controls how behavior, in both good and bad ways, or in Right or Wrong ways.
Unless, of course, and again, âyouâ can show the readers here what âangerâ, for example, âlooks likeâ, exactly, or can explain what âangerâ, itself, âentailsâ, exactly.
From Past Experiences how one has learned to, let âusâ say, âdeal with or control their emotionsâ, âthe waysâ that that one has âlearnedâ is how different emotions are expressed and shown differently.
So, what are you trying to get at, exactly?
How do you, for example, ârestrainâ the emotions that arise within that body?
And, what do you do this for, exactly?
Will you provide âusâ with an example of filtering, or even restraining, say, âjoyfulnessâ, and why you would even want to filter or restrain that human emotion?
Also, when you say âresonatesâ, then resonates with who or what, exactly?
How will others know when and what to change, will know what to keep on doing what they are, or know what is called âhow you are feelingâ, exactly, if the emotions within that body are not shared with others?
After all, the best and most efficient way to help others change for the better, in order to create âthe worldâ that âweâ ALL desire and Truly want to live in, is to just:
- Express the emotion/s that have arisen.
- Express when and why those emotions arose. And,
- Express the very reason why those emotions arise.
For example,
âI feel frustrated and annoyed when, after you have borrowed the car, you bring it back near empty, and especially when I am running late to go to work, which I go to to get more money so as to be able to put more fuel in the car, and I have to stop at the gas station to spent more of the money I had to go to work for, to put more fuel in the carâ.
If âthe otherâ respects and likes âyouâ enough, then they will want to change, for the better, in a way that helps you and not hinders you more.
I am not sure why this behavior of expressing things in âthis wayâ, or what you call "chugging that 1 litre paint can at someoneâs headâ, is something that should be or would even want to be restrained at all.
Exactly. They just âsit thereâ. And, if they keep being restrained, repressed, and/or suppresed, and are not expressed in healthy ways, that is, in respectful, guiding, and peaceful ways, for example, then the more those emotions are pressed down, within, which leads to more and deeper emotions like feeling oppressed and/or depression.
To me, restraining emotions, particular the ones that are Wrongly referred to as ânegative emotionsâ leads to a very unhealthy and unwanted lifestyle.
In fact, restraining or keeping within âthose emotionsâ leads to feeling further oppression, and even further anger, which can then come out explosively, thus creating more conflict, more fighting, more wars, and even more murder and killings. So, although emotions are not expressive, in and of themselves, if and when they are not expressed, properly, Correctly, and in the Right way, they can become very explosive.
Obviously, emotions, themselves, do NOT have âself-awarenessâ. They are not something that possibly could have âself-awarenessâ. The only Thing that has True âSelf-awarenessâ is the âIâ within every one.
Anyway, ALL emotions, again very roughly about 450 of them, are signs, signals, and sign posts of which path is the Right One T.R.A.C.K. to follow and keep on, and when âweâ, collectively, are heading off of and going the Wrong way.
Will you please explain how, exactly, a human being could get what you call and refer to here as âtoo emotionalâ?
And, at what age is so-called âold ageâ, exactly?
I found a medical reference for this situation. The old age is not a requirement actually, but I guess it makes things worse:
Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (also called stress cardiomyopathy or âbroken heart syndromeâ) is a temporary heart condition in which the heartâs main pumping chamber (the left ventricle) suddenly weakens and changes shape, often after intense emotional or physical stress.
Common triggers
Emotional stress:
Death of a loved one
Severe grief
Relationship breakdown
Major fear or shock
Physical stress:
Serious illness
Surgery
Asthma attack
Stroke
Severe infection
Sometimes no trigger is identified.
Symptoms
Symptoms often mimic a heart attack:
Firstly, thank you for trying to clarify. Again, this is very refreshing.
To me, âemotional stressâ comes from NOT expressing the emotions within. If emotions are not addressed and expressed, then they are suppressed, and when compressed and repressed and pressed down too much, this can lead to depression and cause what you said and wrote above here.
Which can also occur in situations like you said below here:
But,
Is just irrational factors, due to Incorrect thinking.
Are âthe symptonsâ of what you called âtoo emotionalâ.
Do you remember what âmy two clarifying questionsâ were, exaclty?
âThe two questionsâ I proposed, and asked you, exactly, were:
Now, if you want to admit and say that so-called âold ageâ is not a requirement, actually, then okay. But I would still love to hear and know how you define âold ageâ, exactly.
And, I am still waiting for what the words âtoo emotionalâ even mean or refer to, exactly.