This is fascinating, Jason.
I think you are drawing on some interesting insights, AND it is the case to be sure to understand them, we need to be sure we are not mixing up different conceptual threads based on association.
First, for anyone following, let’s be clear that extraversion-introversion in Jungian theory is different than extraversion in Big Five trait theory. The latter is surgency, positive affect and general activity levels (especially social/gregarious activities). The Jung conception is focused much more on the character and direction of conscious/phenomenological attention.
To understand the Jungian extraversion-introversion distinction, it is helpful to consider the classes of sensation we have access to. There are “exteroceptive” senses that are the traditional five+ senses that bring in information from the outside. There are also “interoceptive senses” which refer to attention to the senses coming from the organs, like one’s gut. One can also consider one’s intuition here, potentially. Finally, there is proprioception, which refers to how one is aware of one’s position in the world, and pertains to things like balance and coordination.
Extraverted folks have conscious attention dominated by exteroceptive sensation, whereas introverted folks focus more on the interoceptive senses. John Vervaeke’s emphasis that the mind is all about the “agent arena” relationship is helpful here. You can pay attention to the objects in the arena (extraversion) or the mental contents in the mind of the agent (introversion).
With that said, I think interesting reflections can be made regarding what you note about object and field, but much of that is associative and, as I suggested above, is in danger of confounding across meanings.
The argument that I am making about behavior is perhaps best understood by placing it in Ken Wilber’s analysis of the different epistemological quadrants (see here for a brief overview). The argument both Wilber and I would make is that modern science shifted the meaning of “empirical” from observation through the senses into observation grounded in external measurement. This is crucial because it shifts the frame of reference from a first person phenomenological view to a general third person view. I make the additional argument (very consistent with Wilber) that we can characterize the basic conceptual frame of scientific epistemology as behaviors (i.e., observed/measured changes in object-field relations) in systemic contexts. Attached is my view of Wilber’s quadrants seen through the lens of the Unified Framework.
I think I will pause here and then see where we might want to go.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of nysa71
Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2020 10:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Extraversion vs. Introversion, Mental Behavior, & the Object-Field
Hello ToK Society,
Just some thoughts on the concepts of extraversion (i.e., "outward-turning") and introversion, (i.e., "inward-turning"), and how they might relate to the ToK conceptualization of "behavior" as "a change in the object-field relationship"...
Specifically, I'll be referring to the analogy made by Lithuanian sociologist, Aushra Augusta, between extraversion & introversion on the one hand, and bodies & fields (or objects & fields), on the other. And this could be particularly relevant to the ToK insofar
that behavior itself is a change in the object-field relation:
Furthermore, (and bearing in mind from the last sentence in the citation above that "the concept of a field is somehow akin to the concept of a relationship"):
So, in short, it is suggested that extraversion refers to a focus on objects, and introversion as a focus on fields, in object-field relations. Gregg has written before that we can think of humanistic and scientific perspectives as first-person and third-person perspectives, respectively --- which to me, could just as easily be called introverted and extraverted perspectives, respectively. So perhaps --- in object-field relations --- we could say (particularly in regards to psychology) that a scientific perspective focuses primarily on the object, and a humanistic perspective focuses primarily on the field. Thoughts? ~ Jason Bessey
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1