🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1832@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes:
>An interesting passage from Alan Watts:
>
>..the partisans of 'prickles' and the partisans of 'goo'..

C G Jung originated the categories of `extraversion' and `introversion'.
According to Jung, everyone exhibits characteristics of both categories,
but almost (or perhaps absolutely, I can't check now) everyone is biased
one way or the other. The extravert is biased towards objectivity -- the
external world -- and the introvert towards subjectivity -- the internal
world. Seems to me that this aligns with Watts categories, the pricklies
being the extraverts (lots of things out there!), and the gooies, intro-
verts (I love to feel harmonious!).

I don't know enough about bi-lateral (a)symmetry to be sure, but I don't
think that this one aligns with that dichotomy.  On the other hand, this
one does does align with the classic division of philosophers: into emp-
iricists and rationalists.  It also seems in accord with the nature ver-
sus nurture controversy. (Of course these are extremely abstract, though
not necessarily vague groupings.)  Wouldn't it be nice to get a liberal/
conservative tie-up? A recent theory I came across is that Conservatives
are unconsciously greedy, while socialists are unconsciously envious.  I
am consciously lazy, or else I'd provide the reference. While Jung might
not have been too hostile to such an analysis, making it fit with extra/
introversion might take a bit of thought!

Robin (What are Reply-To: and Path: lines for? ;-)