The Myth of Freedom I

"Emotions are as they are, neither suppressed not indulged but simply acknowledged." p 4

I don't know what this would feel like. Emotions are amplified in my current habit and they feed back. What's the difference between acknowledging and indulging?
Emotions are tied to actions. How can I break that tie but still act? What else motivates action but emotion? How do I get off the bench? Wouldn't I sit staring at the wall?
If there's Id, Ego, and SuperEgo, what else is left to be making the decision to optimize outcomes based on healthy motivations with reasonable expectations? How do I know what to do if I don't treat my emotions as guidelines? And if I do follow them, isn't that giving them the credence that is the core of indulgence?
Am I only supposed to follow the positive emotions? But wouldn't "are as they are" mean that judgement about emotions is misguided?

"to develop transcendental common sense, seeing things as they are, without magnifying what is or dreaming about what we would like to be." p 4-5

"Treading the spiritual path is painful. It is a constant unmasking, peeling off of layer after layer of masks. It involves insult after insult." p 6

What are the insults I'm trying to protect my ego against? Those are the things I should practice letting go or denying to myself.
What if we do not really "want to be expressed" because of the responsibility of vulnerability? I defend myself constantly from having to defend myself. I do this by making sure my communication is always controlled and imperfect.

Ego = the effort to maintain ourselves in relation to something else. p 12

Acknowledging impermanence = the possibility of appreciating life as a creative process. p 13