Who speaks from the heart? Whose mind is dominated by his passion? Can we recognize such an entity and should we respect it? Should we listen to it? What is the value of heart-felt thought? Is this the same as that which is written with blood? Is science heart-felt? It seems so. Scientists are as passionate about their discoveries and formulations as a composer about his music - even though both are exceedingly cerebral. Do the hear and mind exist separately? Can one have a big hear and a small mind?
The curious thing about this question of yours here is that it seems almost impossible to answer ‘from the heart’. I draw the question inside, it takes up residence, and I am filled with a quiet, and somewhat sad, silence. To speak in this presence would be almost necessarily to speak falsely. I, at least, lack the skill with words to navigate this experience inside of language. Heidegger does a very good job of it, however.
As for, Do heart and mind exist separately? Yes. Can one have a big heart and a small mind? Yes, I think so. Children are often like this. Innocence, when pure enough, carries its own sublime quality of beauty… born at least in part from an unobscured proximity to truth, no doubt.
Why is the silence sad?
Do children have small minds? I think not, I think their minds are often as wide-open and brave as few adults manage to attain. This is not merely a romantic notion? I think not, I think that it would even be recommendable to listen to children in terms of politics. I think that children can come up with very real solutions to problems barred normally from answers by our silly, arbitrary but extremely stubborn social moralities.
All emotions are products of thought. Simply the heart is just a muscle it does not think. The mind sets in motion all emotions. We say “I like” or “I do not like” this and from there we can become passionate or indifferent.
As babies we laugh freely we also flail our arms and legs. Then knowledge makes us more cynic or pessimistic. But do babies then have more heart or less thought. Or is joy natural but we have to work at being less joyous.
I don’t think emotions are “products” of thought so much as they are a part of thought. In other words, emotions constitute, in part, what we recognize as ‘thought’. They don’t spring forth only as an after effect.
Why would you want to work on being less joyous? I can’t say if a baby has any more or less thought, but I’d wager the nature of that thought is far different. Not necessarily less thought, but perhaps less to think about.
The movement of thought swings like a pendulum from one end to the other. It’s always between pairs of opposites and it’s hard conceive a state of being where these pairs of opposites do not exist at all.
Is it natural to be in a state of being where you have neither joy nor the absence of it?
Take happiness for instance. Is it not an unhappy person that looks for happiness? The search for happiness makes us unhappy. I would not say that it is so natural of a place to stay and be so preoccupied: between happiness and unhappiness. It is so unnatural – an unnatural thing having been accepted as natural. Yet it seems difficult to question this way in which thought moves because, if one questions that, his thought induced existence is at stake. The ’self’ is its thoughts. You are that – not a whole lot different from this movement of thought.
Excellent. If the quantity of psychic substance is the same but the quantity of processes is less, their thoughts would then actually be very “big”. This would somewhat explain their intense emotions.
We miniturize thoughts by squeezing them into words.
We are thought (thought is not a clear concise term to describe what we are). Infants have less thought and consequently there is less of you. The nature of thought was different in that we had no preconceptions, prejudices, or wants. You start to manifest as more thought s arise. And deep, pensive thinking happens. Luckily this happens to not too many and they live happily. So I think we would be more joyous with less thought.
So we are not physical feeling or emotion?
Or is that thought in your view?
Infants do not at all seem less conscious. And I think that consciousness is what we are, not thought.
Thought generally limits consciousness - this is only not the case when thought is creative.
The heart in this sense is an alias for emotion, sincerity. There affects thought have on the heart, our physical heart that pumps are blood, and emotional thoughts really get it going of course. There is no separation of thought/emotion, thoughts result in emotion, emotion results in thoughts, they are always coinciding, they are consciousness together. Thought without emotion does not exist, emotion without thought does not exist. We conceptualize the difference to separate them, an abstraction of aspects of the mind. There are emotions which are difficult to identify, not yet defined to this point, which are very well a mixture of many things.
Rather, the heart is a metonym for the body, being the central root of vitality, and hence the point of greatest vulnerability and honesty.
A thought can either be rooted in the body or not.
I realize that this sounds obscure.
Well, there is no separation of the mind/body for our thoughts, we are a cohesive biological unit in which the mind being a result of the physical brain is part of the body. A thought rooted anywhere is rooted in the human being, where the body and mind are functioning simultaneously together. That is why when we stub our toe we may think some different thoughts as a result, when we are sick our mind can become delirious, and when we are physically tired our mind will function poorly. A healthy body will have a healthy mind. For the other thread in another part of these forums asking about laziness, nobody has taken into account our physical body’s health as being a result of laziness but all chalked it up to some will that comes from the mind. A body that is energized can defeat laziness. All too often people separate the mind and body when pondering reasons about aspects of thought, but it is fallacious to do so. The dichotomy is only a conceptualization, our physicality consists of it all and all are influenced by the totality of our mind and body.
I posit that it is all mind. All image is is developed electrical impulses. And we may think that this images are developed in the brain.
But wait the brain ,our brain if we could look at it then it itself will an image developed out of electrical impulses. But then that would be an image seeing an image.
I do not think that is what is happening.
There is a mind and in this mind all we see hear taste smell feel is created as if in a dream. And all health or sickness comes from mind.
Hope that is post not to far of subject.
And then enters the ilusory self. A entity develops when as infants this thing does not exist. The illusory self then is the basis for misinterprtations of reality. Our passions, joys, emotions are from this thing. It determines if we are loving or hateful. i am not denying that is it is there. i am saying that it is constructed out of thought. i will always be here but deconstructed it is a more free, authentic, and detached I. Its joy, loves, and hates will be itselfs’ and not something imposed by culture.
What do think.
Thoughts from the heart and putting those thoughts into words seem to me to be an attempt to express basic emotions without fear of censure. I think most people are afraid to do so because it could go against what other people feel is ‘proper,’ because of what it reveals about the speaker/writer–tmi, so to speak–and vice versa, of course.
“Speaking from the heart” can also be a lead in to a downright political lie. Be very, very wary ( 
) of pols who use that clause/phrase/saying.