"Intellect vs. Heart", right?

[Oscillation]

Is there really a dichotomy between heart and intellect? What do we mean by asking "do you take descisions from your brain or heart?" or alike? Sometimes I think we tend to make this unfortunate dichotomy even though it's not necessary: wouldn't it be smart to be kind? And wouldn't it be kind to be smart? etc.

What is heart and what is intellect all together?

 

[JJJA]

Every decision we make is made in the mind, via intellect, this includes the ability to be compassionate, kind, and even selfless. You can make a rational decision to be compassionate, there is no war going on between the heart and the mind. They are two very different functionaries. If you're discussing emotions and feelings, that's a very big discussion. To make a decision based on emotive justifications is, by-definition, not rational.

If you are going to make a decision based on a balance between rational objectivity and passionate emotion, expect a certain element of missing logic and flawed logical pattern in your conclusion. For example:

"The sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light." - Intellectual conclusion.

"The sky is blue because God made it that way" - Anti-intellectual conclusion and more-than likely to be driven by emotion (or 'the heart').

 

[muir]

The mystery schools had a 3 stage process for the initiate

Indeed you can see very quickly where different people are on that path

In the modern world we have various tools to try and get a handle on these concepts such as the 'VALS' system or maslows 'hierarchy of needs' which speaks of 'peak experiences'

The first chamber of the mystery schools was concerned with the generative organs which represented our base libidinal urges and violent impulses or what Jung would call the 'animal nature'

These are a vital part of our makeup required for procreation and also self-defence but if not managed can be chaotic and destructive

The next chamber was concerned with the mind and initiates would learn various intellectual pursuits like geometry, music of the spheres, astronomy, maths...the 7 liberal arts etc

This would start to move the initiates focus and energy towards that part of their being. The brain itself is split into two hemispheres with the left concerned with measurement and categorisation and seeing things as seperate whilst the right hemisphere sees everything as one and more holistically. The left brain deals with logic and the right brain deals more with abstract thought

The left side of the brain is known as the INTELLECT but when the left and the right brain are working harmoniously together in complement to each other a dynamic process occurs where the brain provides the combination of creative thinking with the means through which to realise its vision; this state is INTELLIGENCE

The third stage of the process is the heart chamber. Music and the arts were used in the process alongside entheogenic substances to assist the the heart to communicate with the brain and when all of the aspects of the human creature integrate and begin to fire together they create a dynamo that activiates other parts of the anatomy including the pineal gland which then generates the spirit energy allowing intuitive insight and inspiration. This then is GENIUS

The initiate in touch with their heart then receives the trust in their personal intuitive journey

As this persons consciousness expands the cosmos reverberates back with synchronicities and other outer events that are inexplicable and swiftly denied by people in the second chamber and still centred in their intellect but which begin to take on a profound and undeniable meaning to the initiate who begins to find a treasure more precious than any of the trinkets of the material world

 

[charlatan]

Here is the thing: there's no dichotomy INHERENTLY, just like there is no reason someone cannot love both the imaginative and the concrete sensations, and there's no reason someone cannot both love the outgoing life and the withdrawn life.

The aspects of personality having someone prefer one side or another are one thing, but it doesn't determine how much of each domain of experience we tap into. When someone says I'm more of a feeler, but overall has more brain capacity in general, it's likely they pursue both more depth of feeling and more depth of the intellect.
Whereas, when someone identifies as T, they are just saying there's a relative predominance of one side, meaning, even if they think and feel just a few things in a month, overall the slant goes to that side.

Carl Jung for example identified as an intuitive thinking type. But, it's said he pursued more depth of feeling and was more talented in things traditionally associated to sensation than most people. What this shows is that the factors which influence raw degree of development are distinct from those factors which influence the preference of one side over another. This in itself implies the two sides aren't inherently dichotomously opposed.

Often the T types have a bit more of an egoic complex about favoring the logical mind. There have been great intellectuals and philosophers identified mostly with their compassion, but who were simply giants in the intellect. That they were more identified with one side doesn't inherently tell us how much of each side they tapped.

 

[invisible]

both go together. without the other, each is missing something.

 

[muir]

Often the T types have a bit more of an egoic complex about favoring the logical mind

I feel that almost understates the magnitude of this problem and the havoc it wreaks on our planet

 

[muir]

The heart contains a little brain of 40,000 neurons that can learn and remember and feel...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heartmath-llc/heart-wisdom_b_2615857.html

[h=1]Let Your Heart Talk to Your Brain[/h]
by Deborah Rozman

When I was a practicing psychologist, sometimes when I'd be working with a client who was confused about an issue or decision, I'd ask, "What would your heart say?" I often adapted a gestalt technique using two chairs. When the client was sitting in one chair, I asked them to speak from their heart and talk to their mind sitting over there in the other chair. Then I'd have them switch chairs and speak from their head, talking to their heart, telling their heart the mind's views and concerns. It was like two different people talking. The heart spoke from genuine feeling and authenticity, in the present. The mind spoke from opinions, fears, shoulds and shouldn'ts. I had them switch chairs several times, until they had an epiphany. Very often the client would realize their heart's voice was their true self, a voice that offered both more intuition and common sense intelligence.
36

This is no coincidence. What's really fascinating is that the heart contains a little brain in its own right. Yes, the human heart, in addition to its other functions, actually possesses a heart-brain composed of about 40,000 neurons that can sense, feel, learn and remember. The heart brain sends messages to the head brain about how the body feels and more. When I first heard about this scientific research, it intuitively made sense. I had felt for a long time that the heart has its own mysterious way of knowing.
Until the 1990s, scientists assumed and most of us were taught that it was only the brain that sent information and issued commands to the heart, but now we know that it works both ways. In fact, the heart's complex intrinsic nervous system, the heart brain, is an intricate network of several types of neurons, neurotransmitters, proteins and support cells, like those found in the brain proper. Research has shown that the heart communicates to the brain in several major ways and acts independently of the cranial brain.
One important way the heart can speak to and influence the brain is when the heart is coherent - generating a stable, sine-wavelike pattern in its rhythms. When the heart rhythm is coherent, the body, including the brain, begins to experience all sorts of benefits, among them greater mental clarity and intuitive ability, including better decision-making.
Although the heart and brain are in constant communication, we can intentionally direct our heart to communicate to our brain and body in beneficial ways. When we experience sincere positive emotions, such as caring, compassion or appreciation, the heart processes these emotions, and the heart's rhythm becomes more coherent and harmonious. This information is sent to the brain and the entire body neurologically, biochemically, biophysically and energetically. You can shift into this coherent state to bring your mind and heart into harmonious alignment and have more access to intuition often in less than a minute. It can take a little practice to do this on demand, but it gets easier and quicker the more you do it.
Here is how, using an adaptation of HeartMath's "Freeze Frame" decision-making technique:

1. When there is an issue causing you stress, write down what you've been thinking and feeling about it.
2. Shift into heart coherence using the Quick Coherence Technique.
3. In that state, ask yourself what would be a more effective response to this situation, one that will minimize future stress.
4. Listen for what your heart has to say. Notice the first feelings and sensations that come to you. Perhaps it's offering a new insight you need, or is saying let go or be patient?
5. Write down what your heart says, even if it seems too simplistic.
6. Now compare what you wrote in #1 with what your heart said. Which feels better to you? Which has more ease, flow or common sense?

What often blows people's minds is the head saying what seems to be rational arguments that keep the emotions churning, but the heart's wisdom is so clear and releasing and simply feels right. In comparing what they wrote in #1 and #5, people often find the heart more intelligent; the mind more emotional, irrational.
36

I have made letting my heart talk to my brain a way of life because it's much more effective, and offers flow, ease and clarity for me. Whenever I need to, I shift my focus to the heart and ask its guidance. Recently, my mind was wanting to rush ahead and call somebody about an issue there was a deadline for. I got into heart coherence to grasp a deeper connection to the issue. My heart intuition was clear -- don't call now, or I will be reacting out of fear. So glad I waited until I was neutral and calm. The results I get from decisions I make in a heart-coherent state keep confirming the effectiveness of Freeze-Framing for me.
Lately, I hear more and more people across different disciplines and walks of life talking about the heart. People seem to be waking up to the wisdom of letting their hearts guide them, finding it leads them to more joy and fulfillment. This is news that does my heart good.
36

Deborah Rozman, Ph.D., is president and CEO of HeartMath LLC, located in Boulder Creek, California. HeartMath provides scientifically-validated and market-validated tools and technologies that activate the intelligence and power of the heart to dramatically reduce stress while empowering health, performance and behavioral change in individuals and organizations. HeartMath's award winning emWave® technologies monitor and provide real time feedback on heart rhythm (HRV) coherence levels, an important indicator of mental and emotional state. HeartMath also offers training and certification programs for organizations, health professionals and coaches, and a self-paced online personal development program called HeartMastery for individuals.
Dr. Rozman has been a psychologist in research and practice, entrepreneur and business executive for over 30 years. She was founding executive director of the Institute of HeartMath, and now serves on the Institute's Scientific Advisory Board and Global Coherence Initiative Steering Committee. She is co-author with HeartMath founder Doc Childre of the Transforming series of books (New Harbinger Publications): Transforming Anger, Transforming Stress, Transforming Anxiety and Transforming Depression. She is a key spokesperson on heart intelligence and the role of the heart in stress management, performance and wellness.

For more by HeartMath, click here.

 

[JJJA]

I feel that almost understates the magnitude of this problem and the havoc it wreaks on our planet

I don't think I need to explain just how ignorant this comment is.

 

[sprinkles]

Intellect is what determines that Soylent Green could solve overpopulation and depleted resources - and logically it would be correct - while heart would tell you that it is wrong.

Decisions based on heart are what keep our society livable. There's no intellectual reason why I shouldn't murder someone and make a hat out of their face. There really isn't.

 

[PintoBean]

I am thinking of the Sophie's Choice, by Styron. In the situation in which Sophie is forced to choose between saving one of her two children from immediate death, she uses her intellect to pick the child most likely to survive in harsh conditions (her son). Her heart was telling her to give up, gather both her children to her and go to death with them. I think the intellect is often associated with the ability to be very utilitarian when necessary.

 

[sprinkles]

I am thinking of the Sophie's Choice, by Styron. In the situation in which Sophie is forced to choose between saving one of her two children from immediate death, she uses her intellect to pick the child most likely to survive in harsh conditions (her son). Her heart was telling her to give up, gather both her children to her and go to death with them. I think the intellect is often associated with the ability to be very utilitarian when necessary.

That is because the needs of humans are not rational and there's no other reason to not be utilitarian.

 

[say what]

I There's no intellectual reason why I shouldn't murder someone and make a hat out of their face.

I'd buy that hat.



To the OP:

There are many different kinds of intellect- some are dependent on the heart. A dichotomy between the two is made when one believes that all intellect is based on logic, when that is not the case. Yes, logic is a part of intellect, and is clouded when emotions, stemming from the heart, are involved...but that is only one kind of intellect.

 

[sprinkles]

I'd buy that hat.



To the OP:

There are many different kinds of intellect- some are dependent on the heart. A dichotomy between the two is made when one believes that all intellect is based on logic, when that is not the case. Yes, logic is a part of intellect, and is clouded when emotions, stemming from the heart, are involved...but that is only one kind of intellect.

The thing is that if you try to rationalize something but ultimately stop at an irrational element then it is a fallacy of infinite regress a.k.a. turtles all the way down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

 

[say what]

The thing is that if you try to rationalize something but ultimately stop at an irrational element then it is a fallacy of infinite regress a.k.a. turtles all the way down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Interesting link, Sprinkles! I only briefly looked over it, so I should caveat this next few sentences with- I only slightly know the philosophy behind the 'chicken and the egg' circular paradox!

Could you explain more about how you see the metaphor fitting in? Is it that separating the two, and thus determining their relation to each other is a circular process? One does not happen without the other?

I can see irrationality being important in cases where the 'heart' leads the choice, irrationality though is perspective and based on adhering to the properties of logic and reason...it might seem irrational, when basing an outcome on those intellectual properties, but is truthfully rational in the context of 'the heart'.

 

[sprinkles]

Interesting link, Sprinkles! I only briefly looked over it, so I should caveat this next few sentences with- I only slightly know the philosophy behind the 'chicken and the egg' circular paradox!

Could you explain more about how you see the metaphor fitting in? Is it that separating the two, and thus determining their relation to each other is a circular process? One does not happen without the other?

I can see irrationality being important in cases where the 'heart' leads the choice, irrationality though is perspective and based on adhering to the properties of logic and reason...it might seem irrational, when basing an outcome on those intellectual properties, but is truthfully rational in the context of 'the heart'.

Well take kindness for example. Why is it important to be kind? What can we say to rationalize the conclusion that kindness is a good action? Well let's say we answer that question. Let's say that the justification is that kindness makes the world a better place. Well, why do we want to do that then?

In an infinite regress problem we infinitely run into justifications that themselves need another justification if we're to be strictly rational, because if we let it off without a justification at the 10th iteration, then why did we even bother at the first iteration?

What is the real difference to jump through 10 hoops to say that punching someone in the face is wrong and still not being able to actually prove it, vs. just plain saying it is wrong and we don't need a rational reason just straight off the bat?

 

[dogman6126]

To make a decision based on emotive justifications is, by-definition, not rational.

If you are going to make a decision based on a balance between rational objectivity and passionate emotion, expect a certain element of missing logic and flawed logical pattern in your conclusion.

It seems to me that your definition of "logic" here is to strict. There are many different kinds of logic with varying reliability, application, and effectiveness. Emotive reasoning can itself be a logical approach depending on what the "goal" is. For example, if the goal is for you to be happy, then it seems that emotive reasoning is very logical. A better example is that logic does not necessarily result in a definite conclusion. This might not be your own fault, but a fault of the situation or the approach being used. How do you judge the ideal approach? Success of intent seems far to basic.

For example:

"The sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light." - Intellectual conclusion.

"The sky is blue because God made it that way" - Anti-intellectual conclusion and more-than likely to be driven by emotion (or 'the heart').

Answering the question, "Why is the sky blue" by saying "because God made it that way" is not anti-intellectual. Assuming that there is a creator of the universe, and by God we mean that creator, then such a statement is not false. It may not be detailed like some would want, but it is not necessarily an illogical answer. Further, the answer "because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light" is also not a detailed answer. You could be far more extensive in answering such a question (perhaps by explaining how a molecule scatters blue light, how light interacts with molecules, ect.). You could say that an intellectual answer is an answer that is more detailed, and also say that to be more detailed is better, but that is completely arbitrary. In fact, it is not hard to imagine a case where greater accuracy is not a "better" approach. Better is a relative term.

Emotion is a different kind of justification, and has its own applications, strengths, and weaknesses.

Edit: and the same is true of logic. It too has its own set of limitations. To claim one better than the other is like, to use the old saying, comparing apples to oranges. It's illogical, lol

 

[say what]

Well take kindness for example. Why is it important to be kind? What can we say to rationalize the conclusion that kindness is a good action? Well let's say we answer that question. Let's say that the justification is that kindness makes the world a better place. Well, why do we want to do that then?

In an infinite regress problem we infinitely run into justifications that themselves need another justification if we're to be strictly rational, because if we let it off without a justification at the 10th iteration, then why did we even bother at the first iteration?

What is the real difference to jump through 10 hoops to say that punching someone in the face is wrong and still not being able to actually prove it, vs. just plain saying it is wrong and we don't need a rational reason just straight off the bat?

That's an excellent description of that.

So, within the context of the heart vs. intellect, would you say that the infinite regressive problem is trying to dichotomize them? Or simply believing that they should be dichotomized?

 

[sprinkles]

That's an excellent description of that.

So, within the context of the heart vs. intellect, would you say that the infinite regressive problem is trying to dichotomize them? Or simply believing that they should be dichotomized?

Well what I'm saying is that intellect doesn't actually arrive at heart conclusions. When it comes to the heart, all intellect can do is make up a story to let you feel less silly about what you would have done anyway.

Edit:
Also this goes back to the tendency for people to say "I don't care how you justify it, it is still wrong!" when pressed on moral arguments after trying to make a hundred justifications. It becomes clear that the justifications are actually meaningless and they are determined to hold a view regardless of rationality. The attempt to rationalize is merely a show to make themselves feel better, and a camouflage to ward off casual inspection.

 

[charlatan]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] well the thing I often remind is that logic=/=reason. I mean just think of the most logical thing -- a computer. Literally written in binary, does things exactly and strictly according to some logical procedure.
This is very different from how people reason, in that yes, a reason must be something we can translate into logical terms, and which must address all relevant features whose relevance can be framed logically.
However, a reason is ultimately also a conceptual thing existing in the mind and there may be infinitely many ways to logically capture the same reason.

This is the basis as far as I understand for the distinction Jung makes between thinking and feeling and why he can call the feeling function rational -- he means it is very in touch with the rational mind, even if its purpose isn't primarily to create logical arguments.

I think this is very related to the point you mentioned about the potentially irrational, emotional nature of some intellectuals with a weak "function of the heart" so to speak -- in other words, they're detached from conceptualizing the more emotive aspects of consciousness, so that they remain emotional, and become insufficiently harmonized with reason.
Jung often emphasized how emotion=/= the feeling function, and I really think as someone who identifies as a T type, this is very analogous to how logic =/= the thinking function either -- rather these two functions, it's safe to say, bring feelings and logic respectively in harmony with reason, without which one has either the empty feelings of a haphazardly emotional being, or the pedantic logical formalism of a computer without the "spice" that turns it from logic into true reasoning.

 

[charlatan]

The point is emotion in the form of pleasure and displeasure states yes, is more or less on the level of instinctual behavior, and thus cannot be called rational. You could say logic is too removed from human consciousness to constitute something reasonable, and emotion is too fused with human consciousness and subjective/instinctual drives to be considered reasonable, and that reason occurs somewhere in between, when we attempt to relate reasons we're attempting to formulate to either domain. It results in "higher feelings" so to speak.