Head knowledge v. Heart knowledge

beetlemaniac

The Living Force
These are two terms that have been begging me a more precise definition, especially in context of Fourth Way. I think they originate from scripture. So far what I've come up with is;

Head knowledge: Information that we have gained from our observations and reading, still unintegrated, and has not gone through a "testing" phase or some kind of empirical verification, or gone through some other subconscious processes I don't have conscious access to.

Heart knowledge: Knowledge that has been integrated within our Being, which we completely understand. It is displayed in our emotional response to the world and our actions.

Sorry if it's a bit skinny at the moment :-[. Would really appreciate any input.
 
Effect of head knowledge is sometimes talk without action. Effect of understanding (or heart knowledge) is walking the talk or Doing.

An even more skinny version fwiw :)
 
I think both head knowledge and heart knowledge are necessary for different tasks. You cannot really do calculus or taxes with heart knowledge...

One other problem is that "heart knowledge" can mean many different things:

It can be physical body knowledge, such as driving a car (as opposed to the clumsy learning to drive a car, which starts as head knowledge).

It can be emotional center knowledge, or emotional intelligence (such how to connect with people).

It can also mean intuition, or irrational knowledge. Irrational knowledge means literally 'knowing without thinking' (knowing without head knowledge).
 
Seems to be on track.

Knowledge vs understanding is my take on it. Understanding usually has an experience of the knowledge and from what I've found, usually has that "aha!" moment. So using the driving example, you can know the basics and read or learn the theory but to actually go out and do some driving, you actually begin to understand what it involves.
 
It could also be said the two work with different bodies. Man's intellectual body is the least developed without Work. The emotional body is more developed, but still only partially so. Emotion is a powerful force in a person's life, so that kind of learning will be more strongly felt.
 
We know many things, but until we feel with our whole being we can not do anything. Knowledge is having information about something, the understanding is to integrate it.

Although personally there's no Head Knowledge vs. Heart Knowledge, because everything goes together.
 
Álvaro said:
Although personally there's no Head Knowledge vs. Heart Knowledge, because everything goes together.

Yeah, I felt a kind of resistance to separating the two. Like they form some kind of continuum, like the feedback loop from the Wave? I'll grab the quote:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave13g.htm said:
With increase of information the Navigator steers the ship by constantly adjusting the tiller in response to the information. Constant feedback is required for the Navigator to do the job and that is why, along with knowledge in terms of facts and understanding must be combined with self-monitoring so as to have a more intelligent grasp of what is happening in the physical system and in its relation to the reality that the individual experiences. The faster and tighter the feedback loop, the more intelligence is available to the system. The body itself is a metaphor of our unconscious state. As more of it becomes conscious, there are fewer and fewer "unexpected" elements cropping up in our lives.
 
beetlemaniac said:
These are two terms that have been begging me a more precise definition, especially in context of Fourth Way.

Well generally it seems people use "Head Knowledge" and "Heart Knowledge" to mean whatever they want. "Heart Knowledge" can be used as an evasion tactic by new age types for example, a cover-all excuse that sounds good and all but doesn't really mean anything. In that context there tends to be the impression too that anything connected with "Heart Knowledge" should be 'nice' or wrapped/coloured in a certain way, or connected with certain feelings/emotions. Which isn't very helpful and encourages all sorts of imagination/wishful thinking rather than seeing objectively.

I don't think the two terms are used in the Forth Way context, as least in any way that we can give them precise definitions. It could relate to all sorts of things, to centres, parts of centres, knowledge, being, and so on. I might be wrong on that, but I don't recall the terms being used in the way you are trying to define them. Gurdjieff always seemed very concerned that definitions and terms should be precise so that things can be properly understood, perhaps those two terms are too loose within the context of such a system to be useful?

Where are you seeing the terms used that you want to clarify their meaning, the context might make all the difference?

What you are trying to define seems linked to Knowledge, Being and Understanding. The following passage came to mind:

Meetings with Remarkable Men said:
'Understanding is acquired, as I have already said, from the totality of information intentionally learned and from personal experiencings; whereas knowledge is only the automatic remembrance of words in a certain sequence.

'Not only is it impossible, even with all one's desire, to give to another one's own inner understanding, formed in the course of life from the said factors, but also, as I recently established with certain other brothers of our monastery, there exists a law that the quality of what is perceived by anyone when another person tells him something, either for his knowledge or his understanding, depends on the quality of the data formed in the person speaking.

'To help you understand what I have just said, I will cite as an example the fact which aroused in us the desire to make investigations and led us to the discovery of this law.

'I must tell you that in our brotherhood there are two very old brethren; one is called Brother Ahl and the other Brother Sez. These brethren have voluntarily undertaken the obligation of periodically visiting all the monasteries of our order and explaining various aspects of the essence of divinity.

'Our brotherhood has four monasteries, one of them ours, the second in the valley of the Pamir, the third in Tibet, and the fourth in India. And so these brethren, Ahl and Sez, constantly travel from one monastery to another and preach there.

'They come to us once or twice a year. Their arrival at our monastery is considered among us a very great event. On the days when either of them is here, the soul of every one of us experiences pure heavenly pleasure and tenderness.

'The sermons of these two brethren, who are to an almost equal degree holy men and who speak the same truths, have nevertheless a different effect on all our brethren and on me in particular.

'When Brother Sez speaks, it is indeed like the song of the birds in Paradise; from what he says one is quite, so to say, turned inside out; one becomes as though entranced. His speech "purls" like a stream and one no longer wishes anything else in life but to listen to the voice of Brother Sez.

'But Brother Ahl's speech has almost the opposite effect. He speaks badly and indistinctly, evidently because of his age. No one knows how old he is. Brother Sez is also very old—it is said three hundred years old—but he is still a hale old man, whereas in Brother Ahl the weakness of old age is clearly evident.

'The stronger the impression made at the moment by the words of Brother Sez, the more this impression evaporates, until there ultimately remains in the hearer nothing at all.
'But in the case of Brother Ahl, although at first what he says makes almost no impression, later, the gist of it takes on a definite form, more and more each day, and is instilled as a whole into the heart and remains there for ever.

'When we became aware of this and began trying to discover why it was so, we came to the unanimous conclusion that the sermons of Brother Sez proceeded only from his mind, and therefore acted on our minds, whereas those of Brother Ahl proceeded from his being and acted on our being.

'Yes, Professor, knowledge and understanding are quite different. Only understanding can lead to being, whereas knowledge is but a passing presence in it. New knowledge displaces the old and the result is, as it were, a pouring from the empty into the void.

'One must strive to understand; this alone can lead to our Lord God.

'And in order to be able to understand the phenomena of nature, according and not according to law, proceeding around us, one must first of all consciously perceive and assimilate a mass of information concerning objective truth and the real events which took place on earth in the past; and secondly, one must bear in oneself all the results of all kinds of voluntary and involuntary experiencings.
 
Alada said:
Where are you seeing the terms used that you want to clarify their meaning, the context might make all the difference?

I actually first saw it from a post by Laura. Curiosity got the better of me so I decided to look for answers to just what she meant by those terms. A web search shows that the terms originate from bible scripture, so it may be of not much use in the end. Its meaning is quite amorphous, as you say. I guess it's better not to add noise to the 'objective language' we use here.
 
beetlemaniac said:
Alada said:
Where are you seeing the terms used that you want to clarify their meaning, the context might make all the difference?

I actually first saw it from a post by Laura. Curiosity got the better of me so I decided to look for answers to just what she meant by those terms. A web search shows that the terms originate from bible scripture, so it may be of not much use in the end. Its meaning is quite amorphous, as you say. I guess it's better not to add noise to the 'objective language' we use here.

I don't know the context of what it is she was speaking about, but head knowledge could refer to the hypertrophied mental center intellectualizing and compartmentalizing our knowledge at the expense of a more integrated and holistic understanding. Heart knowledge could mean a more balanced view that takes into account empathy and the appreciates the emotional import of all ideas and activities. I think the point is not to favor one center of processing (mental or emotional) above the others unconditionally- it's about proper context for their expression.

I hope this answer is helpful to you. :)
 
whitecoast said:
I think the point is not to favor one center of processing (mental or emotional) above the others unconditionally- it's about proper context for their expression.

I hope this answer is helpful to you. :)

Thanks whitecoast, that was helpful. Is it possible to elaborate a little further on the proper context of expression? I'm thinking about the emotional center particularly. That sentence gave me away... "Thinking about the emotional center," maybe I'm just grasping something that cannot be grasped through plain intellectualising. Forum activity seems to cause a predominating activity on the intellectual center for me.
 
beetlemaniac said:
whitecoast said:
I think the point is not to favor one center of processing (mental or emotional) above the others unconditionally- it's about proper context for their expression.

I hope this answer is helpful to you. :)

Thanks whitecoast, that was helpful. Is it possible to elaborate a little further on the proper context of expression? I'm thinking about the emotional center particularly. That sentence gave me away... "Thinking about the emotional center," maybe I'm just grasping something that cannot be grasped through plain intellectualising. Forum activity seems to cause a predominating activity on the intellectual center for me.

I've been thinking of a response, but it's also hard for me to express in words what the proper context is for the use of our emotions. Emotions play a large role in creating our aim, and what we do with ourselves, as well as a bridge that connects us to other people.

Proper context for expression means, having each center do its own work properly, and not do the work of the other centers. We have different centers for different types of work, whether it's plastering drywall, socializing with our parents or siblings, or solving math equations. When each center does its proper work and coordinates with the other centers, there is harmony and optimal functioning. When a center tries to do work that is not proper to it, it leads to negative results.

Our moving center is best represented by our cerebellum, which is the part of our brains in charge of muscle memory, physical coordination, and the sensing of ourselves physically. If the mental center (best represented by the cerebrum, or primate brain) tries to do work normally designed for the moving center, you get absurd results. You make millions of calculations per second in deciding how to move your body in space, and the mental center cannot do even the smallest part of that. How many centimeters do you lift a certain finger to type a certain key on your keyboard? It feels automatically done for us because our moving center is the most highly developed and efficient of our centers. The mental center cannot come even close, and if you tried to replace your moving center's functioning with your mental center's, you won't be moving anywhere any time soon.

That's an obvious example of a center doing another's work having bad results. Here are more examples.

I remember an article on SOTT that mentioned how people who are biased heavily towards a certain side of the political spectrum, when presented with data that contradicted their lofty views of politicians they loved, immediately started rationalizing their reasons for liking them in spite of the "supposedly" contradictory info. Brain scans showed that when rationalizing those individuals didn't even use their frontal cortex - the part of the brain responsible for reasoning and focused thought. They instead showed activity in their amygdala and limbic system, which are in charge of emotional processing. This is an example of the emotional center doing the work of the mental center: the truthful realizations a more open-minded person would have are thwarted because the emotional center feels the need to defend ideas or sacred cows it has invested in emotionally... almost like it is a child or a pet of theirs.

There are even more examples of the mental center doing the work of the emotional center. When a child cries because a favorite toy of hers broke, it would not be appropriate to tell the child that it is just a piece of plastic or felt. That is technically true, but the proper thing to do would be to comfort the child, which builds empathy and creates an environment for the child to recover from feeling the sad loss of her friend. You could do both, but the child is asking for emotional support, and not a talk on why imagination sometimes distorts our views on reality.

Here's another example. In academic circles, the intellectual center often tries to do the work of the emotional center in the study of ethics. They hit a roadblock when the philosopher David Hume pointed out that, "there is no way to derive an ought statement from an is statement." He showed that the intellectual center on its own cannot create aims for our actions. We may have rational reasons for our actions, but if you keep asking "why?" to an action repeatedly (children love this game), you always end up with an emotional or instinctive need that needs to be fulfilled. This is why Gurdjeff says that the higher emotional center must be our highest authority. Trying to find "rational" codes of ethics that are 100% valid and sound arguments are doomed to failure because they often neglect the importance of emotions in our cognitive functioning. That is an example of the intellectual center doing the work of the emotional.

If you are asking for cut and dry, hard criteria for determining whether reason or emotion should be used for a certain thing, it's hard to say. It's kind of a tacit thing, like you said.
 
I think whitecoast's examples above are very appropriate for the discussion.

I'm not sure, however, of the current supremacy of one center (assuming motor, emotional and intellectual as our 3 centers) over the other, as quoted below:

Joe Larsman said:
It could also be said the two work with different bodies. Man's intellectual body is the least developed without Work. The emotional body is more developed, but still only partially so. Emotion is a powerful force in a person's life, so that kind of learning will be more strongly felt.

Well, we do feel emotions, but are they in their pure state, or are they but a grotesque result of a lifetime of suppression and distortion? I think it's the latter. Yes, emotion is an extremely powerful, if not absolutely fundamental source in a person's life, but in the world we live they aren't necessarily used in the most positive, productive way. Would we have a healthy emotional development, that source would have the potential for brilliant results, but that isn't the case.

Also, consider how our educational system is built, everything you learn is geared towards developing your intellect. There is no mention whatsoever to one's emotional development. The same is generally true within family, apparent mental capacity is usually highly treasured over one's emotional inner world. Given this, one could even say that the intellectual center is actually more developed then the emotional one, although I personally don't think so. If one center is usurping another's energy, can it be said that the first is more developed, or is it rather overworked and as unbalanced as the other?

From an emotional perspective, I'm more inclined to see us (human beings) as little children, completely underdeveloped, with no idea of where these "inner impulses" of ours come from, nor of what to do with them. The result of a lack of proper processing of such emotions can then take several forms, erratic uncontrolled behavior at one end of the scale, and intellectualizing of the emotion with further suppression at the other end.

whitecoast said:
You make millions of calculations per second in deciding how to move your body in space, and the mental center cannot do even the smallest part of that. How many centimeters do you lift a certain finger to type a certain key on your keyboard? It feels automatically done for us because our moving center is the most highly developed and efficient of our centers. The mental center cannot come even close, and if you tried to replace your moving center's functioning with your mental center's, you won't be moving anywhere any time soon.

Does performing a multitude of actions necessarily makes them less automatic? It can be said that the mental center performs just as many calculations, but they aren't less automatic because of that. The staggering amount of activity is one of the illusions that tricks us, as a species, into thinking that we are awake when we are actually sound asleep, osit.

I don't think we are body aware at all, and I would also add that we have huge problems concerning sexuality. Sexuality has been incredibly corrupted (I wish I had a better English word at hand, corruption just sounds like a very pale description...), and that makes it near to impossible to have a healthy motor center, at least for the vast majority of us.

whitecoast said:
I remember an article on SOTT that mentioned how people who are biased heavily towards a certain side of the political spectrum, when presented with data that contradicted their lofty views of politicians they loved, immediately started rationalizing their reasons for liking them in spite of the "supposedly" contradictory info. Brain scans showed that when rationalizing those individuals didn't even use their frontal cortex - the part of the brain responsible for reasoning and focused thought. They instead showed activity in their amygdala and limbic system, which are in charge of emotional processing. This is an example of the emotional center doing the work of the mental center: the truthful realizations a more open-minded person would have are thwarted because the emotional center feels the need to defend ideas or sacred cows it has invested in emotionally... almost like it is a child or a pet of theirs.

Very interesting. This reminds me of the Amygdala Hijack and more thread. It is very insightful in what concerns emotional intelligence, particularly the video linked.
 
I agree with Gertrudes that ALL our centers are unbalanced. And the corruption of sexuality IS a HUGE problem. Also, the "development" of the intellectual faculties is done through formal education in a way that the mechanical, formatory apparatus is overdeveloped at the cost of all else. We, as a result, are totally asleep and do not function anywhere near where we have the potential to.
 
Gurdjieff said that if you don't KNOW something like you KNOW 2+2=4, then you don't KNOW it.
In the context that "heart knowledge" is being used here, it's my thinking that this defines it fairly accurately.
That you KNOW it with every fiber of every center.
FWIW.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom