Airy Heads and Saving Hearts

[Shawna]

Hello. I'm interested, can you describe knowing something with anything but your "head" (I assume you mean brain?)?

Hi Pastaferian,

Let me see if I can figure out a different vocabulary to compare it to.

Airy head knowledge = The knowledge that you gain intellectually.  It is scholarly, or maybe theoretical...  It is the sort of knowledge that a person gets about driving a car by reading about how to drive a car.

Saving heart knowledge =  The knowledge that you gain by doing.  It is intuitive, or maybe practical... It is the sort of knowledge that a person gets about driving a car by actually driving a car.  It is internalization of knowledge so that it becomes a part of the way you live, even when you aren't paying attention to it.

How's that?

[Pastafarian]

How's that?

With respect, terrible.

You can gain knowledge about how to drive a car by reading about it, as you said, sure. You can gain knowledge by experiencing the act of driving a car, sure. Both involve your brain. Both sets of knowledge are based in reality. They are tangible, testable, repeatable experiences that can be proven to be real.

What on Earth is "airy" supposed to mean? What is "saving heart" supposed to mean? Do you mean knowledge gained by studying versus experiential knowledge? That is the closest I can get your words in line with reality here. If so, both types occur in the brain, not the blood pump. One invariably involves more emotion but they both refer to the same thing: driving a car and how your brain handles the muscles and feelings involved.

Lets change the synonym a little, make it more to the point at hand. A book describes a magical creature who cannot die, has 7 000 000 wings and is made up of black fire. It describes how to ride such a beast. Further more, it tells you you can be one with it and gives a few hints of what that will result in (not many mind you, leaving you free to imagine ever so much).

Now, in order to experience this knowledge you have gained (with your brain) you will need to go down to your nearest magical creature dealer... oh s**t. A problem has arisen. it appears the creature cannot be bought, seen, felt, smelt, touched or tasted.

But that's OK, you can hear it, oh not with your ears, but in your beautiful, fantastically imaginative brain. Your. Heart. Pumps. Blood.
Again, what type of knowledge can be gained outside of/separate to, your brain, ( "intelligence - intellectually - ":noun, the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills) ?

OR

Guess which one: can you drive a car without your brain or without your heart?

[Shawna]

^  Pasta,

The Head and the Heart are metaphors here.

I was under the impression that you didn't understand the types of knowledge that were meant when I used those metaphors.  So I explained the types of knowledge meant.   Yes, "studying" versus "experiential" is just about right.

I am unclear about your meaning with your reference to the magical creature.  It seems unrelated.

[Shawna]

Ok, sorry, Pasta.

The phrase "airy head knowledge" was coined 350 years ago, in England.  "Airy" is probably not a word we would choose today for such a phrase, but it still works, I think.  "Airy" is used to connote the insubstantial and ephemeral nature of head knowledge... book-learning.

"Saving heart knowledge" was coined at the same time.  "Heart knowledge" is the metaphor chosen to indicate experiential knowledge... knowledge that has been internalized as a foundational part of our lives.  "Saving" is straight out of orthodox religion... It is the experiential knowledge that turns one around to salvation, not the book-learning.

No matter how much a person reads or has studied the Bible, they have nothing but air... unless they also have an experiential relationship with Christ.  Like HE says, the book-learning and the experiential knowledge ought to line up with each other.  Sometimes, however, we don't truly understand what we've read about something, until we go out and do it.  So sometimes we misinterpret what we have read.

EDIT:  spello

[Pastafarian]

Yes, "studying" versus "experiential" is just about right.

OK, so here's what I think.

By choosing archaic terms to describe what you believe are two different states I was immediately led down this path:

"Airy head"

• airhead
• insubstantial
• • therefore, less valuable
  • not "solid"
  • empty

I realize these words are not in those two but they are inferred, otherwise, why go back to such useless, misleading language? Words are our servants, not our masters to quote someone or other.

"Saving heart"

• saving= well... fixing, correct, truth, Truth, obviously valuable, opposite to failure
• heart= emotion, warmth, love, etc...

Sooooooooooooo

when put next to one-another a romantic, or anyone who is passionate/ruled by their feelings/not focused on reason will likely choose the latter. Those terms are designed to make experience, specifically religious experience, look like the winning formula.

So now lets take your advice

"Airy" is probably not a word we would choose today for such a phrase...

and speak plainly:

Knowledge

• testable
• therefore reliable
• solid
• volumnious (NOT insubstantial)
• can be divorced from misleading personal interpretation, feelings/li]
  
  • therefore reliable
  
  Experience
  • subjective
  • therefore not reliable for infallible truth
  • emotional
  • widely varied, repeatable but with varied results
  • therefore not reliable for infallible truth
  • a tool for gaining knowledge - like a hammer it is not always the right one...
  • therefore, cannot be trusted implicitly, again, as it cannot be relied upon 100% of the time
  
  So now I think anyone with at least a modicum of caution and respect for reason and evidence would choose both, but rely more on what is testable, explainable and solid. "do me a solid" and speak honestly?
  
  

[Shawna]

[list
OK, so here's what I think.

By choosing archaic terms to describe what you believe are two different states I was immediately led down this path:

"Airy head"

• airhead
• insubstantial
• • therefore, less valuable
  • not "solid"
  • empty

I realize these words are not in those two but they are inferred, otherwise, why go back to such useless, misleading language? Words are our servants, not our masters to quote someone or other.

"Saving heart"

• saving= well... fixing, correct, truth, Truth, obviously valuable, opposite to failure
• heart= emotion, warmth, love, etc...

Sooooooooooooo

when put next to one-another a romantic, or anyone who is passionate/ruled by their feelings/not focused on reason will likely choose the latter. Those terms are designed to make experience, specifically religious experience, look like the winning formula.
...
[/list]
 
So now I think anyone with at least a modicum of caution and respect for reason and evidence would choose both, but rely more on what is testable, explainable and solid. "do me a solid" and speak honestly?

The solid knowledge comes from experience.  The insubstantial knowledge comes from learning about something in theory.

It is always good to study and to learn about things.  But it is the hands-on knowledge that is the real, solid stuff.  And it is the experiential knowledge that allows you to test your theoretical knowledge, and to modify it as necessary to reflect your experience.

I brought it up in this thread because, in my opinion, Fly has more "airy head knowledge" than "saving heart knowlege."  He likes to say he knows a lot about the Bible, and by extension God... but I see little evidence of any actual experience of God.  That's my opinion, anyway.  For what it's worth.

[Pastafarian]

I really feel like the words "airy" and "saving heart" cause those reactions/thought associations I pointed out above. Do you disagree? You don't address the question so that's why I'm asking it. What you did was change the words again and made a new assertion of fact. I am not stating facts, I just want to point out the reason those silly words seem to have been used in the first place, sneaky and misleading words I think.

You've replaced my word "knowledge" with "theory". Are you saying that I need to experience someone rising from the dead before the theory that it's possible becomes knowledge? (I'm with you on that one if you are!  ) Have you experienced someone rising from the dead? (not the effects thereof - those can only be found only in people's heads - the actual, physical resurrection of a human).

Your'e saying fly has a lot of information (insubstantial...mmm...ok  ) about god - from the only source there is I might add - but he/she has no experience of it. So? What has anyone experienced that is outside of their own head regarding Christ? What "solid" experience can anyone point to? What "solid" experience that is not open to misinterpretation (think Gravity) or has a totally different, reasonable explanation at hand? If there is none, how "solid" are they?

[Happy Evolute]

I brought it up in this thread because, in my opinion, Fly has more "airy head knowledge" than "saving heart knowlege."  He likes to say he knows a lot about the Bible, and by extension God... but I see little evidence of any actual experience of God.  That's my opinion, anyway.  For what it's worth.

^ That is what you would call "airy head", I think, or what I would call "theory".  You have never met a fly so far as I am aware, so your opinion of the quality of his knowledge is just a theory, not based on solid experience.  

So far as I am concerned "airy head knowledge" is worthless if it is not based on experience, but much of such knowledge is based on other peoples' solid experience.  That's why it should be taken seriously.

I must say that I dislike this crude method of categorising knowledge. Knowledge is a subtle thing, and championing intuition over careful thought unbalances the system to a dangerous degree.  At least, that's what my intuition tells me.

Shall we ask a moderator to split this discussion out of a fly's Corner Thread, we don't want to be locked out do we?

[Pastafarian]

^ nicely said as usual, cheers.

Yeah, can we move it?

[Pastafarian]

The solid knowledge comes from experience.  The insubstantial knowledge comes from learning about something in theory.

Oh and I agree with this, good point, to a point.

It is always good to study and to learn about things.  But it is the hands-on knowledge that is the real, solid stuff. 

That's why I say to a point. Gravity is real, solid stuff. So is the Sun etc.

There's a difference between saying "experiencing what you know is real is more powerful than just knowing it exists" and "this can only be experienced as it cannot be shown to actually exist". I would question that experience. I think any reasonable person should, but it gets "saving heart" tacked onto it and the previous statement gets associated with "airy head". I think that's intellectual poverty. or disingenuous and trickery, or not very well thought out.

Probably all of the above.

[Shawna]

I find it interesting that you two (Pasta and HE) seem so defensive about what are specifically religious terms, designed to help believers discern the quality of their faith.  I suspect that it is because I wasn't clear about how the phrases are used.

The Quakers did not originate the terms "airy head knowledge" and "saving heart knowledge" to differentiate between secular knowlege and sacred knowledge.  They originated it to differentiate between the theoretical knowledge about God that nominal Christians had, and the experiential knowledge of God that a Christian who was actively following Christ had.

The Quakers were calling folks to stop listening to what other people had to say, including the writers of the Bible, and to start paying attention to what they themselves knew and could say about God. 

And so he went on, and said, “That Christ was the Light of the world, and lighteth every man that cometh into the world; and that by this light they might be gathered to God,” &c. I stood up in my pew, and wondered at his doctrine, for I had never heard such before. And then he went on, and opened the scriptures, and said, “The scriptures were the prophets’ words, and Christ’s and the apostles’ words, and what, as they spoke, they enjoyed and possessed, and had it from the Lord”: and said, “Then what had any to do with the scriptures, but as they came to the Spirit that gave them forth? You will say, ‘Christ saith this, and the apostles say this;’ but what canst thou say?  Art thou a child of the Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest, is it inwardly from God?” &c. This opened me so, that it cut me to the heart; and then I saw clearly we were all wrong. So I sat down in my pew again, and cried bitterly: and I cried in my spirit to the Lord, “We are all thieves; we are all thieves; we have taken the scriptures in words, and know nothing of them in ourselves.”

OK, with that background said, I will go back and address your previous posts.  I have to go get the kids ready for summer camp, so it will be later today. 

[Shawna]

I brought it up in this thread because, in my opinion, Fly has more "airy head knowledge" than "saving heart knowlege."  He likes to say he knows a lot about the Bible, and by extension God... but I see little evidence of any actual experience of God.  That's my opinion, anyway.  For what it's worth.

^ That is what you would call "airy head", I think, or what I would call "theory".  You have never met a fly so far as I am aware, so your opinion of the quality of his knowledge is just a theory, not based on solid experience.  

So far as I am concerned "airy head knowledge" is worthless if it is not based on experience, but much of such knowledge is based on other peoples' solid experience.  That's why it should be taken seriously.

I must say that I dislike this crude method of categorising knowledge. Knowledge is a subtle thing, and championing intuition over careful thought unbalances the system to a dangerous degree.  At least, that's what my intuition tells me.

Airy Head Knowlege is not the same thing as careful thought.  And Saving Heart Knowledge is not the same thing as intuition.  Again, the best parallels I can come up with using non-religious words is Head=theory, and heart=experience.

My theory about the relative state of Fly's spiritual maturity is based on my experience with him here on the forum. I do not know everything about him, of course, but I can make some educated guesses based on the behavior I have seen him engage in.  In the same way, he has made some educated guesses about the state of my spiritual maturity, based on what he has seen here on the forum.  We do our best, based on our own understandings.

So far as I am concerned "airy head knowledge" is worthless if it is not based on experience, but much of such knowledge is based on other peoples' solid experience.  That's why it should be taken seriously.

Yes, other people's experiences of the divine should be taken seriously.  Thank you for pointing that out, HE.  But until you have had your own experience, you can only take their experience seriously... you cannot adopt them as your own... which is why, I suppose, you are not a Christian right now, even though you believe that other people's experiences should be taken seriously.     Thanks for the vote of confidence, HE!


I am trying to work through the other posts in this thread... sorry it's taking me a bit.

[Omen]

To what extent do you take something seriously that cannot be tested for directly or indirectly?

To what extent is it deemed not taking it seriously if you suggest models that can be tested for directly or indirectly? ( such as delusion, hallucination, dishonesty etc )

[Pastafarian]

Shawna, I think the reason you cannot come up with nonreligious words to describe your point is because as you say, these silly, misleading and pernicious words were  designed to trick believers into believing that not knowing is OK as long as you feel it, experience it (again, where if not in your head?) and to subtly cast an ugly shadow over anything "scientific/intellectual" (the scientific method) and as such, it only has meaning and value within religion...faith...untestable/unprovable/only existing in your head... airy words for an airy concept.

I know this talk very well. You explining it's purpose from a believer's perspective is unnecessary. I remember the "the greatest distance god has to travel is 12 inches..." speech very well. I swallowed it when I was 15 or so (god I had to, to prove I thought with my emotion and not my airy head! How weak I was!! for shame.)but I want to point out what I clearly see now: it's a sly trick and if you stop for a minute you should see it. No?

[rickymooston]

Saving heart knowledge =  The knowledge that you gain by doing.  It is intuitive, or maybe practical... It is the sort of knowledge that a person gets about driving a car by actually driving a car.  It is internalization of knowledge so that it becomes a part of the way you live, even when you aren't paying attention to it.

How's that?

This is a concept is the core of what Taoism is about!!!

On the face of it, nothing about it has to be supernatural. (See my thread ... http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,38314.msg144316.html#msg144316 ... Pay special attention to JustMyron's and Gaston's posts there and ignore Kerlessa's and LOS's)

In my version of discussion, I'm discussing "sentience" which is harder to fully define but in essence in Taoism experiencing things are very important.

Another analogy is reading love poetry without ever having been in love or been kissed by somebody ... 

For the record, I am saying that this knowledge is still in one's head.

The problem is, you can't fully convey it to somebody else through words.

Welcome to my world.

I think a Quaker is a Taoist in a funny hat, who worries a bit too much about God, some of the time? (And about some holy books, etc.)

[Pastafarian]

Ricky, nice to see you agin mate :)

Ni3 Hao3 ma?

So, sorry about the 20/20 world cup... not 

[rickymooston]

I brought it up in this thread because, in my opinion, Fly has more "airy head knowledge" than "saving heart knowlege."  He likes to say he knows a lot about the Bible, and by extension God... but I see little evidence of any actual experience of God.  That's my opinion, anyway.  For what it's worth.

^ That is what you would call "airy head", I think, or what I would call "theory".  You have never met a fly so far as I am aware, so your opinion of the quality of his knowledge is just a theory, not based on solid experience. 

So far as I am concerned "airy head knowledge" is worthless if it is not based on experience, but much of such knowledge is based on other peoples' solid experience.  That's why it should be taken seriously.

Shawna, I argue there are two aspects of your "knowledge"
1) Your "experience", which you are conjecturing that Fly is not experiencing based on his outward behavior
2) Your "interpretation" of the experience you are having.

The first part is legitamate knowledge!!!
The second part, is as HE's says a "theory".

I must say that I dislike this crude method of categorising knowledge. Knowledge is a subtle thing, and championing intuition over careful thought unbalances the system to a dangerous degree.  At least, that's what my intuition tells me.

The danger is always in the interpretation.

I'm going to conjecture I experience a similar thing that Shawna does in my own "Taoist" way.

You as an atheist "might" experience something different and "interpret" it as being a "nice person" with a positive attitude who likes "poetry" and "music" or you may not.

Another thing, it could feed into along the same lines is Vynn's Jouassance thread. 

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,38191.msg138580.html#msg138580  It touches on some of the same ideas but avoids interpreting the experience.
---

In Fly's case, I don't know him as a person.   He may experience many positives in his life that he's simply not disclosed in terms of that "Airy" "God" knowledge; i.e., the "life changing positive attitude" that affects "some people" in religion.

A total atheist, might expereicne the same thing and see it as a positive attitude.

I lied about one thing. Kerlessa asked, "is God a placebo". In a sense, the answer could possibly be partically "yes" ...

The Hindu's speak of the "God in you".

Again, you can be a total atheist and experience what Shawna is actually talking about. The "God knowledge" is not specifically interpreted as being God by everybody experiencing it.

Shermer again, the experience is real but the interpretation is another matter.

[rickymooston]

Ricky, nice to see you agin mate :)

Ni3 Hao3 ma?

So, sorry about the 20/20 world cup... not 

Wo Hen Hao. Ni le?

[Pastafarian]

Wo ye hen hao, ke shi wo hen lei  suo yi wo xian zai shui ziao 

I'm interested about taoism, will check out the thread and get back here tomorrow. nighty night Americano's/Auzzies :)

[rickymooston]

The main experience Shawna seems to be talking about is perfectly valid and a positive thing.
The issue is her interpretation of that expereince.
Essentially her "Airy" knowledge has two parts:
1) The experience which is wordless "head knowledge", stored in brain.
2) Her interpretation of that experience as "God".

Part 2 is a theory.

Part 1 is perfectly valid experential knowledge,

[Shawna]

Shawna, I think the reason you cannot come up with nonreligious words to describe your point is because as you say, these silly, misleading and pernicious words were  designed to trick believers into believing that not knowing is OK as long as you feel it, experience it (again, where if not in your head?) and to subtly cast an ugly shadow over anything "scientific/intellectual" (the scientific method) and as such, it only has meaning and value within religion...faith...untestable/unprovable/only existing in your head... airy words for an airy concept.

I know this talk very well. You explining it's purpose from a believer's perspective is unnecessary. I remember the "the greatest distance god has to travel is 12 inches..." speech very well. I swallowed it when I was 15 or so (god I had to, to prove I thought with my emotion and not my airy head! How weak I was!! for shame.)but I want to point out what I clearly see now: it's a sly trick and if you stop for a minute you should see it. No?

You still haven't grasped the concept.  The phrase "airy head knowledge" has nothing to do with the scientific method.  It has to do with taking other people's word for something that you ought to be experiencing yourself.

I'm afraid that I do not consider it a sly trick, even after thinking for several minutes.  But that is because my own experience has led me to believe that God does exist, and it has also led me to trust my own judgment.  Which is what the "saving heart knowlege" bit is about... learning things for yourself and trusting what you have learned.

[Shawna]

I think a Quaker is a Taoist in a funny hat, who worries a bit too much about God, some of the time? (And about some holy books, etc.)

 

Well, there is something to that.  So far as I can tell, taoism concentrates on mindfulness and on one's own experience.  There's that bit about "The way that can be followed it not the way...."  in other words... you can't follow someone else's map.

But I don't worry about God  :)

[Shawna]

Shawna, I argue there are two aspects of your "knowledge"
1) Your "experience", which you are conjecturing that Fly is not experiencing based on his outward behavior
2) Your "interpretation" of the experience you are having.

The first part is legitamate knowledge!!!
The second part, is as HE's says a "theory".

Yes.  We all take our experiences and interpret them.  That is indeed where differences often spring up.  But it is also an unavoidable step.  Without interpreting our experiences, we end up with nothing but disorganized chaos in our heads.  But you're right... the devil is in the interpretation. 

[Pastafarian]

you can be a total atheist and experience what Shawna is actually talking about. The "God knowledge" is not specifically interpreted as being God by everybody experiencing it.

Shawna, it is certainly encouraging to read that you thought about it. Refreshing!
My labelling "airy head and saving heart" as sly and pernicious was not about whether the person uttering them is sly or not but that the effect is pernicious. See this youtube vid: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/rLIKAyzeIw4&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/rLIKAyzeIw4&rel=0</a>. 

I'm willing to admit "sly" might be a bit strong and motivated by my own mistrust of Xtians. Sorry 
 
However, by labeling knowledge as either Earthly or Spiritual, I think we err. Moose hit it on the head, Knowledge is knowledge and interpretation is outside of that. Which is why I don't personally think "saving heart" is a good basis to live one's life on IF it's not based in good reason and supporting evidence (knowledge).

So in fact, it LOOKED sly to me to make interpretation stand above knowledge, I just didn't have the words and didn't understand completely why. Am I making sense? I'm a little tired...