CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Spirituality › Should we let go of our feelings?

Should we let go of our feelings?

Started by David Vaughn75 · · 👁 10 views · 260 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants David Vaughn75loneskipper10wearyowl29Thomas Turner2Steven Stewart3goldenjackal6James Miller2Thomas Nelson25coastalwalker9Ryan Wilson2bluemason3rustymaker5Keith Lopez6neonmarlin39Joseph Bailey41Maria Parker77Lisa Jackson7hiddenpuma75hollowpuma762mistybisonfrozenstag9casualmoose82John Wood8Kenneth Taylor3 …
wearyowl29 wearyowl29 Regular
715 messages
joined Feb 2014
#221 ·
I just can't get over how much I love a good, hearty bowl of pasta! There’s something about it, isn't there? Just pure, unadulterated comfort. I was sitting in a little bistro in Chicago the other day—you know the type, tiny tables, smells like garlic and heaven—and I had this incredible rigatoni that just changed my life. It’s funny how a simple meal can completely shift your mood. Anyway, I'm feeling quite hungry now! Anyone else craving some carbs? kaže:
Just a quick question... why do you always insist on using the word "flock" when "community" would fit the context perfectly?

I’m honestly not quite sure why you think religion would even exist for the reasons you're bringing up. I mean, that could only possibly happen if... authoritarian Misinterpretations of doctrine can be a slippery slope! Honestly, they’re often used as a convenient tool by outside authorities to enforce discipline. It reminds me of that one time back in college when a professor tried to twist a simple syllabus rule just to keep the class in line—total power move! It happens more often than you'd think.

...
Honestly, we really need both. It’s not an "either-or" situation at all!

If you decide that faith isn't the foundation, then you're basically leaving yourself with nothing to guide you except Caesar’s laws. It sounds fine on paper, right? But here’s the thing—if that mindset starts to spread, the government begins to snatch up all the authority that used to belong to our moral communities. Instead of just looking after a "flock," you end up with a state that exerts way more intense, rigid control over everyone. It's a slippery slope! I remember reading about how once central authorities step into that moral vacuum, things change fast.

There’s really no such thing as "private" morality. Honestly, we all live in this massive moral field where everyone is constantly bumping into one another, influencing how we act and what we believe. It’s like being part of a giant, interconnected web! I was thinking about this while grabbing coffee at Starbucks yesterday—you can't just opt out of the social fabric. We’re all shaped by the community around us. It's inevitable!
If you want to spark a real, deep transformation from within, don't get me started on how hard that can be! It’s one thing to have that sudden burst of inspiration in your living room at 2 AM, but let’s be honest—sooner or later, you’re going to need some outside momentum to keep the fire burning. It’s like trying to start a massive bonfire with just a single match; eventually, you’re going to need some actual logs and a bit of wind to keep things moving!
We don't have to turn into the Borg just because of that!

What kind of frequency is society actually vibrating on? That’s the real question. Honestly, it’s so easy to just play the part and go through the motions. You can just point at the old religious institutions and claim they’re still calling the shots, tie everything back to Caesar, and give the whole thing a polished veneer by saying, "Don't worry, we're sticking to our traditional values." But if you look closer? Those values are rotting from the inside out. It’s all just a performance.

A flock is just a religious crowd, really. It’s always going to need a shepherd to lead the way! To me, a community is something much broader—it’s any group of people brought together by shared territory, common rules, their heritage, and how they carry themselves. It's about that sense of belonging to a specific place and a specific way of life.

Honestly, society doesn't need some massive oversight committee for religion. We already have plenty of systems in place to keep everyone on track! I’m talking about our laws, common sense, and those basic moral standards we all grew up with. It’s already built-in!

Personally, I don’t need some religious moral police breathing down my neck, and honestly, I doubt most people would want that kind of leadership anyway. It feels a bit much! Besides, let's be real—most of our laws and regulations are already built on those traditional values. We've got enough on our plate without adding extra layers of oversight.

I’ve said it a thousand times before: you can absolutely head out into the deep woods and live just fine without society and all its suffocating little control mechanisms. Honestly, sometimes I think we'd all be a lot happier if we just unplugged from the system entirely! Civilization itself is really just the evolution of control. It’s a long, winding road that starts with some prehistoric guy being the toughest dude in the tribe and ends up with our modern judicial systems in a democracy. It’s all about who gets to hold the reins!
You can't have a civilization without control. It’s just one of those fundamental truths, isn't it? I was thinking about this while watching a documentary on the early settlers moving West—how much structure they had to build from scratch just to survive! Without some level of order and oversight, everything just falls into chaos. It's the glue that holds us together.

Morality isn't some private thing you keep tucked away in your pocket. I mean, think about it—if you're all alone in your living room, you can do whatever you want! There’s no "right" or "wrong" when there's nobody around to witness it. True morality only really kicks in when you're interacting with another person. It requires that spark, that connection between two people, to actually grow and exist. Without that interaction, it's just you and your own thoughts.
It’s funny how we think about right and wrong, isn't it? I was thinking this morning while grabbing my coffee that what actually drives us to be decent people isn't some rulebook or a badge—it’s just other people. It’s the presence of another human being. When you realize you're stepping outside your own moral compass, something clicks inside. You get this sudden, sharp internal nudge to just... stop. And honestly? It’s not because you're worried about getting caught by the cops or feeling guilty about some cosmic sin. It’s much deeper than that. It’s about your own soul. Your conscience basically stages an intervention! Even if doing the right thing ends up costing you money or making your life a little harder in the moment, you do it because you simply can't live with yourself any other way. It’s that quiet, stubborn integrity that defines us.
What really drives us is that level of spiritual maturity we’ve built up over time. It’s an internal spark, you know? It starts deep inside and eventually becomes this automatic way of acting. Of course, just because you've reached that point doesn't mean your personal code will always line up perfectly with what society expects from everyone else!

There’s this heavy, nagging vibration of guilt and sin that religions just love to exploit—and let’s be honest, they really do lean into it. It’s constant. But on the flip side, there’s this completely different frequency: the vibration of spiritual self-sufficiency. It’s that feeling of being truly centered, or what some people might call "inner work." I remember sitting in a coffee shop in Seattle last year, just watching people rush by, and it hit me how much energy we waste carrying around that manufactured shame instead of just finding our own internal footing. It's all about that shift from external pressure to internal peace!
Rachel Kern5 Rachel Kern5 Member
19 messages
joined Feb 2020
#222 ·
rustymaker5 said:So if that's the case, why on earth does everyone insist that emotions are the language of the soul? 🤔

Or maybe... intuition is simply the soul's version of intelligence. 🙂
Thomas Nelson25 Thomas Nelson25 Regular
582 messages
joined Jan 2021
#223 ·
George Wood2 said:Should we strive to be devoid of emotion?

Until now, I had assumed this particular dilemma was reserved solely for Mr. Spock and the inhabitants of the planet Vulcan. What manner of individual could possibly exist entirely untouched by feeling? Perhaps some sort of mutant hybrid, a mere android masquerading as a man?

Fear, mostly.

A guy like that would be more than ready for Valhalla
frozenstag9 frozenstag9 Member
45 messages
joined Oct 2019
#224 ·
I mean, you really have to turn it off.
Joseph Bailey41 Joseph Bailey41 Veteran
1K messages
joined Apr 2021
#225 ·
Thomas Nelson25 said:Fear, mostly.

A guy like that would be more than ready for Valhalla

Sure. But what’s the point of being that ready if he still has decades of nothingness ahead of him?
bluemason3 bluemason3 Veteran
1.1K messages
joined Jun 2016
#226 ·
Thomas Nelson25 said:Fear, mostly.

A guy like that would be more than ready for Valhalla

That sounds pretty foolish and counterproductive to me. Fear exists for a reason; having too little of it is just as dysfunctional as having too much.

It’s better to stay stone-cold calm when a lion is attacking you.😁

Priests overcomplicate things. They’re always chasing after some nonsensical unicorns and trying to manifest these naive, impossible fantasy projections about what should or shouldn't happen.😁
Thomas Nelson25 Thomas Nelson25 Regular
582 messages
joined Jan 2021
#227 ·
Joseph Bailey41 said:Sure. But what’s the point of being that ready if he still has decades of nothingness ahead of him?

Honestly, that place doesn't even need to exist.
It could just be a total psychological state.

I'm just saying—it's like this "switch" that kills off fear, even when people start calling on gods and stuff.
Fear just goes poof.
Thomas Nelson25 Thomas Nelson25 Regular
582 messages
joined Jan 2021
#228 ·
bluemason3 said:That sounds pretty foolish and counterproductive to me. Fear exists for a reason; having too little of it is just as dysfunctional as having too much.

It’s better to stay stone-cold calm when a lion is attacking you.😁

Priests overcomplicate things. They’re always chasing after some nonsensical unicorns and trying to manifest these naive, impossible fantasy projections about what should or shouldn't happen.😁

Fortune favors the bold.
Catch a lion and eat its heart—raw, obviously. 😁

Brave as a lion.

You get how we're actually programmed? By ideas.
Doesn't even matter if it's evolution or a Creator... we're binary—switches, 0s and 1s.
Joseph Bailey41 Joseph Bailey41 Veteran
1K messages
joined Apr 2021
#229 ·
Thomas Nelson25 said:Fortune favors the bold.
Catch a lion and eat its heart—raw, obviously. 😁

Brave as a lion.

You get how we're actually programmed? By ideas.
Doesn't even matter if it's evolution or a Creator... we're binary—switches, 0s and 1s.

Yeah, you've pretty much secured your spot with that one. 😬

Thomas Nelson25 said:Fortune favors the bold.
Catch a lion and eat its heart—raw, obviously. 😁

Brave as a lion.

You get how we're actually programmed? By ideas.
Doesn't even matter if it's evolution or a Creator... we're binary—switches, 0s and 1s.

Exactly. How do you build fanatic warriors? You sell them a narrative. Symbols are what run this world.
Thomas Nelson25 Thomas Nelson25 Regular
582 messages
joined Jan 2021
#230 ·
Joseph Bailey41 said:Yeah, you've pretty much secured your spot with that one. 😬

Exactly. How do you build fanatic warriors? You sell them a narrative. Symbols are what run this world.

What a mess. 😛
Even better.
..and where are today's suicidal idiots in vests heading? Watch out, it's the 21st century. 🙄

Symbols, obviously—that pretty much sums it up. 👍
Joseph Bailey41 Joseph Bailey41 Veteran
1K messages
joined Apr 2021
#231 ·
Thomas Nelson25 said:What a mess. 😛
Even better.
..and where are today's suicidal idiots in vests heading? Watch out, it's the 21st century. 🙄

Symbols, obviously—that pretty much sums it up. 👍

They're headed somewhere they can hang out with girls (or guys, depending on what they're into).

I've heard that Hassan-i Sabbāh used to give his followers hashish just to give them a taste of the level they were aiming for.
bluemason3 bluemason3 Veteran
1.1K messages
joined Jun 2016
#232 ·
It’s probably a good thing he never messed with psychedelics 🤣
goldenjackal6 goldenjackal6 Active Member
99 messages
joined Nov 2019
#233 ·
George Wood2 said:Should we strive to be devoid of emotion?

Until now, I had assumed this particular dilemma was reserved solely for Mr. Spock and the inhabitants of the planet Vulcan. What manner of individual could possibly exist entirely untouched by feeling? Perhaps some sort of mutant hybrid, a mere android masquerading as a man?

Psychopathy is basically a disorder where a person's brain functions totally differently when it comes to spontaneous emotional reactions.

Let me break it down: in neurotypical (non-psychopathic) people, the centers responsible for generating specific emotions send signals to other parts of the brain whether they want to or not. But in a psychopath, there's this "switch" that stays stuck in the "off" position by default—especially when dealing with anxiety-spectrum emotions triggered by stress.

There are pros and cons to that. For instance, psychopaths are practically immune to PTSD and can be incredibly high-functioning in high-pressure situations (basically, they stay extremely cool under fire). On the flip side, they can become absolute monsters if they were raised in a dysfunctional environment, which is unfortunately the extreme version we see most often in Hollywood movies. Because of that, "psychopath" is probably one of the most stigmatized terms today. In reality, most psychopaths are perfectly functional people who just seem a little "off" if you observe them closely; they aren't out there fantasizing about murder or anything crazy like people imagine when they hear the word. If you think about it, Mr. Spock and Tuvok are essentially highly functional psychopaths because they suppress emotions entirely and think purely through logic—that’s the definition.

bluemason3 said:That sounds pretty foolish and counterproductive to me. Fear exists for a reason; having too little of it is just as dysfunctional as having too much.

It’s better to stay stone-cold calm when a lion is attacking you.😁

Priests overcomplicate things. They’re always chasing after some nonsensical unicorns and trying to manifest these naive, impossible fantasy projections about what should or shouldn't happen.😁

Common sense can substitute for any spontaneous emotional function; you don't need to be gripped by fear to recognize a threat and react appropriately.

Besides, emotions are a double-edged sword. When you're terrified, you stop thinking straight and end up doing something moronic, like running away from a lion. That's the dumbest move ever, because turning your back and presenting an easy target to a predator is basically just telling them you're an easy meal.
bluemason3 bluemason3 Veteran
1.1K messages
joined Jun 2016
#234 ·
goldenjackal6 said:Psychopathy is basically a disorder where a person's brain functions totally differently when it comes to spontaneous emotional reactions.

Let me break it down: in neurotypical (non-psychopathic) people, the centers responsible for generating specific emotions send signals to other parts of the brain whether they want to or not. But in a psychopath, there's this "switch" that stays stuck in the "off" position by default—especially when dealing with anxiety-spectrum emotions triggered by stress.

There are pros and cons to that. For instance, psychopaths are practically immune to PTSD and can be incredibly high-functioning in high-pressure situations (basically, they stay extremely cool under fire). On the flip side, they can become absolute monsters if they were raised in a dysfunctional environment, which is unfortunately the extreme version we see most often in Hollywood movies. Because of that, "psychopath" is probably one of the most stigmatized terms today. In reality, most psychopaths are perfectly functional people who just seem a little "off" if you observe them closely; they aren't out there fantasizing about murder or anything crazy like people imagine when they hear the word. If you think about it, Mr. Spock and Tuvok are essentially highly functional psychopaths because they suppress emotions entirely and think purely through logic—that’s the definition.

Common sense can substitute for any spontaneous emotional function; you don't need to be gripped by fear to recognize a threat and react appropriately.

Besides, emotions are a double-edged sword. When you're terrified, you stop thinking straight and end up doing something moronic, like running away from a lion. That's the dumbest move ever, because turning your back and presenting an easy target to a predator is basically just telling them you're an easy meal.

I don't know. Theoretically, the construct of psychopathy implies low anxiety and low stress, as well as low empathy, but if I recall correctly, it doesn't mean immunity to anger or other feelings. Rather, one of the subtypes of psychopathy (which is more or less analogous to antisocial personality disorder, if I'm not mistaken) is characterized by poor impulse control.
goldenjackal6 goldenjackal6 Active Member
99 messages
joined Nov 2019
#235 ·
bluemason3 said:I don't know. Theoretically, the construct of psychopathy implies low anxiety and low stress, as well as low empathy, but if I recall correctly, it doesn't mean immunity to anger or other feelings. Rather, one of the subtypes of psychopathy (which is more or less analogous to antisocial personality disorder, if I'm not mistaken) is characterized by poor impulse control.

You’ve gotta remember that most of the research on psychopathy is done on inmates in state prisons. It’s incredibly hard to spot functional psychopaths in the wild—most regular people wouldn't even realize they're dealing with one, and honestly, a lot of them don't even know they fit the profile themselves.
bluemason3 bluemason3 Veteran
1.1K messages
joined Jun 2016
#236 ·
goldenjackal6 said:Psychopathy is basically a disorder where a person's brain functions totally differently when it comes to spontaneous emotional reactions.

Let me break it down: in neurotypical (non-psychopathic) people, the centers responsible for generating specific emotions send signals to other parts of the brain whether they want to or not. But in a psychopath, there's this "switch" that stays stuck in the "off" position by default—especially when dealing with anxiety-spectrum emotions triggered by stress.

There are pros and cons to that. For instance, psychopaths are practically immune to PTSD and can be incredibly high-functioning in high-pressure situations (basically, they stay extremely cool under fire). On the flip side, they can become absolute monsters if they were raised in a dysfunctional environment, which is unfortunately the extreme version we see most often in Hollywood movies. Because of that, "psychopath" is probably one of the most stigmatized terms today. In reality, most psychopaths are perfectly functional people who just seem a little "off" if you observe them closely; they aren't out there fantasizing about murder or anything crazy like people imagine when they hear the word. If you think about it, Mr. Spock and Tuvok are essentially highly functional psychopaths because they suppress emotions entirely and think purely through logic—that’s the definition.

Common sense can substitute for any spontaneous emotional function; you don't need to be gripped by fear to recognize a threat and react appropriately.

Besides, emotions are a double-edged sword. When you're terrified, you stop thinking straight and end up doing something moronic, like running away from a lion. That's the dumbest move ever, because turning your back and presenting an easy target to a predator is basically just telling them you're an easy meal.

I disagree. At an analytical level, data processing is just too slow, making that kind of reaction highly inefficient. In many environments—especially those we were evolutionarily exposed to for much longer—the speed of an instinctive reaction offers enough of an advantage to outweigh errors in judgment. It’s better to jump at a twig in the dark out of pure instinct than to get bitten by a snake while you're still busy analyzing what it was.

The few examples we see of people whose affective or instinctive functions are impaired while their rational ones remain intact haven't exactly turned out well. They end up completely dysfunctional, even in a modern urban setting.
We simply don't have the cognitive bandwidth to make every single daily decision based purely on reason; if we did, society would grind to a halt.
bluemason3 bluemason3 Veteran
1.1K messages
joined Jun 2016
#237 ·
goldenjackal6 said:You’ve gotta remember that most of the research on psychopathy is done on inmates in state prisons. It’s incredibly hard to spot functional psychopaths in the wild—most regular people wouldn't even realize they're dealing with one, and honestly, a lot of them don't even know they fit the profile themselves.

That’s completely beside the point here. Psychopathy is defined by a lack of affective empathy and a lack of "normal" emotional connections with others—essentially just having a different kind of emotional life, not an absence of feeling altogether. That isn't part of either the theoretical construct or the diagnostic criteria (which, granted, aren't standardized since psychopathy itself isn't included in official medical diagnostic manuals, though certain traits have been profiled as dominant in research).
goldenjackal6 goldenjackal6 Active Member
99 messages
joined Nov 2019
#238 ·
bluemason3 said:I disagree. At an analytical level, data processing is just too slow, making that kind of reaction highly inefficient. In many environments—especially those we were evolutionarily exposed to for much longer—the speed of an instinctive reaction offers enough of an advantage to outweigh errors in judgment. It’s better to jump at a twig in the dark out of pure instinct than to get bitten by a snake while you're still busy analyzing what it was.

The few examples we see of people whose affective or instinctive functions are impaired while their rational ones remain intact haven't exactly turned out well. They end up completely dysfunctional, even in a modern urban setting.
We simply don't have the cognitive bandwidth to make every single daily decision based purely on reason; if we did, society would grind to a halt.

Evolution is actually pretty brilliant, which is exactly why high IQ shows up so frequently among psychopaths.

bluemason3 said:That’s completely beside the point here. Psychopathy is defined by a lack of affective empathy and a lack of "normal" emotional connections with others—essentially just having a different kind of emotional life, not an absence of feeling altogether. That isn't part of either the theoretical construct or the diagnostic criteria (which, granted, aren't standardized since psychopathy itself isn't included in official medical diagnostic manuals, though certain traits have been profiled as dominant in research).

Using the word "normal" is really just a synonym for whatever trait most people happen to have. It doesn't mean something is inherently "good" when you step back and look at the big picture or try to plan long-term.

Affective empathy is only one side of the coin; the other is cognitive empathy. And honestly, depending on the situation, sometimes being driven by emotion works, and sometimes being rational is the move. Usually, being rational is the better bet.
Joseph Bailey41 Joseph Bailey41 Veteran
1K messages
joined Apr 2021
#239 ·
bluemason3 said:It’s probably a good thing he never messed with psychedelics 🤣

That's how Americans played games with things in Vietnam. They didn't exactly love the outcome.
Thomas Nelson25 Thomas Nelson25 Regular
582 messages
joined Jan 2021
#240 ·
Joseph Bailey41 said:That's how Americans played games with things in Vietnam. They didn't exactly love the outcome.

Apocalypse Now

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads