East is East and West is West (and never the twain shall meet); but why are humans in-definitive?

I don't like to make generalities - they are weak points in a logical progression. Stereotyping is also a logical fallacy. But there in nothing wrong with deduction, the difference is that here, your stereotypes based on general deductions are constantly changing - the more data processed, the more absolute the principle (if anyone followed that...well, that's great - it's somewhat of a paradox). Ha, I love reasoning...

I made a generality in my post, Alexithymia, a stereotyping generality. Generalities are not a normal thing in my posts, and if I ever make one I will point it out. But I made this one with the understanding that I would later have to build a support structure beneath it, or bail from it. And now I want to start building - and bailing...

I want to bail from my "persona"; I'm afraid that if I retain it I will not be understood. I have been approaching this "idea" form a strictly logical point of view (over the past week), and I have been reveling in it - I want to lose that. I don't want to treat humanity (the subject of this post) like that in front of whoever may read this post. This "idea" entails a lot, but I wonder how much is healthy to pursue. And coupled with that fear is that God created man, and I'm confident that no amount of data will sufficiently allow me to categorize His "crowning creation" absolutely. So, I'm going to demonstrate my position with "emotional" facts (now that is a paradox!); I hope that it is understood better this way.

The idea that I've been toying with is that there are two types of people in this world - those who express the emotions in the scenarios of life, and those who express their emotions through them. I suppose that I'm not naive enough to assume that this principle is black and white - I know little enough about humans to know that there can always be exceptions to any such principle. And I think the most important thing to keep in mind throughout all this is that the "realm" each person happens to be in only affects their reality, not their personality (and it is interesting to note that the two are easily confused). Personalities are what throw a curveball at every principle that attempts to categorize people - and as such, I imagine that categorizing personalities absolutely will remain an elusive feat, forever...

Of the two realms, the former contains the people that tend to leave the biggest impression on society.  
This type of person naturally absorbs the emotions of whatever situation they are in. It is natural for them to be change their mood rapidly, as their environments change. And the emotions they express tend to be less "personal" and more generic - and as such they can relate to many people at the same time and to the same depth, although it may be somewhat shallow. They make better classical musicians - able to percieve the "emotion" of the piece and express it without clouding it with personal feelings. They make stable, "sympathetic" friends, ones that are able to keep issues in realistic/longterm perspective and not to blow them out of proportion because of the feelings involved. It's not that they are aloof, or unable to feel, it's just that they are less affected by "animate" emotions and more affected by "inanimate" ones (maybe "personal" would be a better word to use). The reason why I said that this reality type tends to be more "impressionistic" is because they are more outgoing, influencial in a broader way - and their legacy (so to speak) is left with more people, although the legacy tends to be less "vivid" and personal.

The latter type of person seems to be less common; either as a result of there being fewer people in this realm, or simply because they are more withdrawn. They express emotions through life, dependent upon the situation they are in at the moment.They cannot express themselves through all scenarios, only through a select few. And so, for them, life tends to be a sort of closet who's door is only open at certain times; when it is closed, it is dark and lonely; when it is open, it is intense and hard to control. They swing from being walled up and untouchable to being vulnerable and unstable, but their overall mood is very slow to change. Their feelings are personal, specific and "exhausting" and that makes relating very difficult. But in the few cases where it occurs the relationship is deep and whole-hearted, almost "passionate". To contrast, if the former type of person makes better classical musicians, this latter type tends to make better "contemporary" musicians (think rock/alternative not hiphop); using music as a "door" to express themselves. They tend to be "swayable" and "empathetic" friends; intensely focused on whatever issue on hand - a perspective based on the moment and the feelings involved. Emotions are personal and therefore they are hurt easily, and that causes them to withdraw back into their "closet". Their influence is not broad, but it is deep.

I'm not sure if any of this makes sense. Personalities (either real or manufactured) easily disguise a person from unobservant eyes; but if personality factors are removed it seems that only these two types of people would remain. And the most important thing is that it is not for an outside person to determine which of the two types an individual is - or, I should say that it is possible to guess, but it can never be determined for certain without being the individual.

I'm the latter, how about you...?

- This taken me two weeks to write -