Psychology: a mutated and bastarsized philosophy

"the organization of experience in the mind or brain that includes a particular organized way of perceiving cognitively and responding to a complex situation or set of stimuli"
The above is a psychological definition of "schema."
"a plan, a conceptual framework"
That is definition of the word.
The difference, as you can observe, is in the details. Psychology opperates within the medium of the brain and mind. So, where a philosopher would define something abstractly - standing for a larger class of things or events, psychology defines more narrowly, limiting the occurences of things to one ground: mind and its workings. Psychology also names things without explaining them. And those who use psychology attempt to present you in a funny light when you would know the definitions of the concepts they are applying: they then claim circular definition and state that the definition is in the statement. But how can a definition be explained by its own definition? How can a conclusion of the premise serve a premise to the conclusion? It can if you use psychology and care to overpower. At this point psychology freaks throw their hands up in the air and claim you to be a "sophist" - intersting, by defnition you are the opposite of that! But if you attempt to clarify what "sophist" stands for, they claim you to be "anal." Basically, the power of psychology is in its absolute and utter dogmatism, its refusal to discuss its statements and claims (rather than postulates and theorems or theories) and its self righteous, holier-than-thou approach to any situation. Psyhology stands so immovable simply because it cracks the whip of fear and promotes ignorance among the masses and individuals by claiming godlike knowledge of their every move and motiff. Wrong? It is not a discussion matter for this time. Psychology lives off the past, be it proven, unproven or even wrong, it is irrelevasnt for its purpose. It cares little for right and wrong claiming them to be relative (sure, relative, but offer to any psychology user to share her income, to pay for your college, to even buy you a meal or allow you to logde in their house for free, and they immediately retreat to the certainty and unambiguity of law. Sometimes they call you a "Demagogue" hoping to disarm your reason and force you into slavish compliance with THEIR purpose). All these people care about is gain, gain, and more gain, at all costs by all means necessary.

To demonstrate my point in action, I will deconstruct the phrase "responding to a set of stimuli."
By now, many of us "know"what stimuli is. We know it unconsciously, and this is how psychology users want you to remain. Unconscious. Try to give me a defnition of the word you claim to know - what is a stimuli? And how do you know the origins of your knowledge?How do you know that "stimuli" means what it is and nothing else? You take the words you use for granted and the sources you trust implicitly.
But beyond that.
Let us assume the knowledge of the word "stimuli." What does "responding to a set of stimuli" mean? What does a human brain "responding to a set of stimuli" really mean? Who is that "human brain"? Modern common psychology depersonalizes and presents a set of chemical reactions and actions within the brain, the process that brain undergoes when doing something as an EXLANATION. Stating that something happens is not an explanation. How is that an explanation of anything? To know how a brain functions inside when presented with the situation outside only tells us about the processes of the brain. How does knowing about the processes of the brain help us understand why we do cetain things? It does in a sense that it presents a human being as an animal of sorts, reacting to something. It tells us hat we know: we are animals, and we react. The definition of psychology devoids a human being of self-will and conscious mind. The same definition could be paraphrased to carry meaning, not indoctorination. Instead of "responding to a set of stimuli" we will say "acting in accordance to presented information." Difference? Behold. According to psychology, we are all unconscious creatures and can be drawn to and fro through a proper set of stimuli - in other words, through manipulation and deceit. When a human being reacts unconsciously, human being is human being no more. It is reason that makes us human, while our animalism makes us beings. "Acting" and "choosing" are inherently human words and dominion of analysis and work of philsophy.
It is the business of philosophy to make you human, as it is the business of psychology to dehumanize you.
Because psychology claims dominion over man kind through chaining it to its unconscious and depriving the human kind of mental, spiritual growth and physical growths (after all, where is it to grow if psychology understands everything and knows everything?) it abhors reason and will eliminate it through a series of false accusations and violent attacks. It is no other than philosopher that psychology today presents as a stupid, funny, guffy individual, thus depriving the doctor who would bring medicine, of his office. Psychology is Chimera and Philosophy is Bellarephone.

PS. Psychology gives you unexplained definitions you have not understood and are using unconsciously. It then claims universality to these definitions implying and often stating openly that you not knowing immediately the "meaning" of what it claims renders you stupid or even unreasonable. It actually goes as far as to claim an office of its mortal enemy thus appropriating on the move things that are not it's due. This means that you will never evolve to the core and neither will you ever be able to operate in your world as a conscious, fully conscious human being. Because psychology will render attempt at personhood trite, ridiculous. When you will confront it and demand an explantion as to why what you are doing is "ridiculous" it will give a smirk and you will have to have "understood by hunch." As to that Carl Jung teaches us that having understood things by hunch will guarantee we will never truly come to understand them and be able to use the information at will. But who wants you to use information at will and become self proclaimed? Where will psychology go then?!
Most women study defnitions and not their sources of arousal or the explanations as to why certain things act as they do. They don't understand reality but only understand that certain things create certain reactions. They are like Plato's natural forces, endowed with some power but not with consciousness. Knowing that a container schema contains figure-ground distinction is quite different from understanding that container schema must contain figure-ground distinction in order to demonstrate the concept "in" because the concept "in" means "from somewhere else to elsewhere. From one place to another. And "one place" and "another" are concepts (ideas or symbols standing for a group of things or items), whereas one place is separated from "another" by a fact of a boundary. Without that boudary neither is there "here" nor is there "there." There is one continuous blah. And that "somewhere" and "elsewhere" are concepts within a concept. They are points within the place of exterior and interior and are not the concept of "in" itself. Why? Because they are not sufficient. Why? Can you take the "somewhere" and place it into "elsewhere"? How does "somewhere" look? How does "elsewhere" look? Are they the whole part of exterior and the whole of interior? Or are they half? Or a quarter? How to estimate? Who dictates? Moreover, how will that "somewhere" look? How will that "elsewhere" look? So the two questions that stand are: what part of exterior is either somewher or elsewhere? And, when is somewhere a part of exterior and when is it a part of interior and when is elsewhere a part of interior and when it is a part of exterior. What form does it have? Form is secondary. So in order to determine what part of exterior or interior is either somewhere or elsewhere we need first to determine if it is somewhere or elsewhere we are dealing with. Once that has been determined we can proceed to determine if it is interior or exterior it will be coming out from. To determine the nature of the element in question we must know what we are looking for. And if we are looking for a part going from exterior to interior, meaning from outside inside. And the inside is inside the outside. And the outside is outside the inside. So, the part of exterior is going from outside into inside. Determined one answer: the exterior is going from outside to inside. How do we know? Because the assignment given was "in". And now the second answer: what part of exterior goes into interior? One thing for sure, the whole exterior does not go into the whole interior, because if the whole exterior will go where will the interior be? If there is no exterior, there is no interior, and therefore the whole task becomes null and void. Consider, if the whole exterior will fit itself into the whole of the interior (do we even know that they are a fit? Perhaps the exterior is larger than interior by an arbitrarily chosen percentage of 150%?...) where will the interior be positioned? So, it is illogical to assume that the exterior can go whole into interior. So, since it cannot go whole but go it must, then a part of it will go. And now a second part of the second question stands: what part of the exterior goes into interior? Percentage allocation will not be available lest I have a form the exterior will take while going into interior. But with assurance I can say one thing: a part and not a whole of exterior will go into interior. Now how about establishing what part of interior will the part of exterior occupy? Will it occupy the whole of the interior? Will it occupy a part of the interior? It is irrelevant for the sake of this argument. What was important was determined: the exterior goes into interior, and at that only a part of exterior goes into interior. Now, how is exterior part going into interior different from simple exterior? Factors are added. The answer to this question will bring us closer to understanding how the concept "in" arises and why it employs a profiling of things and further a figure-ground distinction. The idea of something going as opposed to something being static is different from an idea of being static. "Going" is an action. Then, going with a definite purpose such as a location point is different from simply "moving." "Going" is moving with a destination. Moving with a destination implies a point of origin and further a point of arrival. And a path. And so what difference is there between a static state of being such as "exterior" is and an active act of moving from-to along? A difference of an act, a suddenly arising point of location and a point of destination. Before, there was only a thing. The thing had a name and was relative to another thing. Now the thing was an object moving with a point of origin and a destination. What concepts arouse in the process? A concept of movement. A concept of point of origin. A concept of point of arrival. And so, the exterior whole became an exterior part, and an exterior whole state became an exterior part moving to from. When does a simple container schema (exterior-interior-boundary) became a profiled and figure-ground distinction? The profiling - the highlighting of one thing and not the other happened when the point of destination was determined. And the point of destination is into the interior. And so, the focus becomes the interior since it is the final destination. As such, it is highlighted. And when does figure-ground distinction come into the picture? When the point of origin and point of arrival orginate. There is another schema such as source-path-goal schema. That schema is different from figure-ground schema in that it explicitly is concerned with the path whereas the figure-ground distinction is not concerned with the path. Figure-ground is like source-path-goal but with location and origin only, no path traversed mentioned. It means the path is irrelevant to the concept. And so to adjust the concept, going from and going into is only important in that it demonstrates the going but not the process of going. And the going without its process is a location. It is location A and location B. And since the path is removed, the location A is determined in relation to location B. And that "in relation"means a "connection." And that connection is by its nature proximity. Because the part of exterior was going into a interior. The point of description was not the traversing of the path but the point of description was going from to. This means that something from outside travelled somewhere into inside and with that we are concerned, not with the fact that it travelled but with a fact that it did from certain point A to certain point B. So, just as location one - interior and not exterior was determined by highlighting to demonstrate the important to concept main point, so is now the relationship between the items - necessary for demonstrating the concept "in" in full is drawn. The highlighting indicates the place of occurence as opposed to the unhighlighted version which is a place of non-occurence. As we know the location - interior by having it highlighted, so we know that that location is in relationship to another location, thus giving a rise to a concept "in" in fullness. Because a location inside the interior is only a location, without a relationship necessary for a concept of "in" to arise. Only the presence of another location could demonstrate a relationship and since the concept "in" implies a relationship of two places from which one leaves to go into another, two things must be present. Two things must be present to demonstrate a relationship and the relationship is important because it is through a relationship that the dynamic arises. So, just the presence of exterior and interior by themselves are not sufficient because these presences only indicate the facts of their presences. However, we have here a part from one place going to another place, and that "going" as indicated already involves movement, location of departure and location of origin. Why then is "figure-ground" distinction? The figure-ground distinction is to demonstrate the going but minus the path. Because to the concept "in" the path as such is unimportant, the concept has been adjusted to demonstrate only what is necessary and nothing more. Since the path is not looked upon in our understadning why even include it in the concept? Therefore, figure-ground is instead of source-path-goal. Now, again, the exterior and interior were important because we needed to demonstrate th ground of occurence. Where does the happening of the concept "in" occur? In the exterior or in the interior? And we have demonstrated it thereby by highlighting the ground of interior. And then, to demonstrate the occurence itself (otherwise, why are we highlighting, for what purpose? What is it supposed to indicate? It is supposed to indicate the ground of occurence) by indicating the acting agents such as the interior acting as a ground and a piece of exterior going into that interior we demostrate that occurence that arises out of relationship between these agents. That relationship is between an interior ground and an exterior piece, and the relationship consists of transporting from point outside to the point inside. And each concept has a goal, and a goal of the concept "in" is to demonstrate the location. And the location of what? Of a thing. What thing? A thing from exterior. Why from exterior? Because if the thing was in interior already it would be a part of it and therefore would not need to have a distinction drawn. And since it is not a part of interior proper but is related to it in some way, it must from exterior and by a relationship of location. "Location" means being being present in something, being present does not mean being a part of. Even being inside does not mean being one of the thing itself. So, it is established then that the ground of occurence exists, it is established that it exists inside, and it is established that occurence is of a location kind. And since "location" means being in or at (from somewhere is implied), it is also established that the occurence is where a part of the exterior goes inside the part of the interior. And so thus I have all three components such as goal (inside), location (interior), relationship (between the outside part of the exterior and the inside part of the interior). So, the component parts are exterior, interior and a boundary. This is indicated by container framework. The goal is to be inside. This is indicated by highlighting of the ground of the goal of occurence - the interior. The relationship that allows things to arise in this case, is location. This is indicated by an interaction of at least two things. In this case the location relationship occurs between a part from the outside and the interior. And the nature of tha relationship is a part of the exterior going into an interior. And it lodges itself there - hence the goal, the ground of occurence. I avoid using the word "location" to indicate the ground of occurence simply because I wish to use different terms not to confuse the concepts. The below is a further explication on the subject of last framework - figure-ground and why it is unnecessary to use a source-path-goal one instead.
MORE ON A CHANGE OF FRAMEWORKS FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE-PATH-GOAL TO FIGURE-GROUND.
The origin in not in the focus because of the assignment given is arrival and not departure. The part, the ubiquitous part wants to go elsewhere. And how does it "go?" Does it teletrasport? Does it fly? Or does it crawl? And what does philosophy teach us about all three of these? That these three have in common a concept of travell. And what does travel imply? Let us be conscious and state what we know. "Travel" implies movement. And what kind of movement? Rotational? Circular? Bakc and forth? From one foot to another? A movement from to. From one point to another point via a traversed path. So, a part of somewhere going elsewhere moves. It GOES. It traverses a path. So a new addition to the container schema will be a path, a point of origin and a point of destination. And so, the part now goes from in to out, from interior to a point (remember, just like an entire interior does nto travel from itself to exterior, the point of interior will not travel to fill the entire exterior but a part) of the exterior. So, a point from interior, to a point in exterior, via a traversed path. Is path signification and conceptualization necessary for the understanding of the concept of "in" and "out"? No. A simple indication of an origin and a point to go to is enough. And the "point of origin and the destination" are indicated by Landmark and Trajector. In other words figure, and ground. Figure is "trajector" (the very word carries the meaning of movement in it) and ground is "landmark." Do these terms "landmark and trajector", "figure and ground" make any kind of sense without an explanation? Not really. Without an explanation and the process of reasoning all you will do is press buttons and spit out expressions, like a trained chimpanzee.
So, now, with the help of understanding and sketching a container schema, as well as profiling (distinguishing) the Interior in that Container schema, as well as adding a second distinction in the shape of additional framework within the framework of a container schema (that is why the "figure ground" distinction is not actually referred to as a framework proper within the operational framework of container schema, because only one framework major can operate at a time and others are like species within a genus, categories, though in separate they are frameworks, within the category designated as a major framework ,they are properties and distinctions. It is important to understand this operational method, or in other words, it is important to uderstand that the term "framework" acts relativily to the situation outlined and looked at, just as profiling and highlighting is done with a specific goal in mind) allows us to understand the concept of "in" and "out" as something going from exterior point to an interior point (located in place. Do not confuse a representational picture of a mug on a table with a concept of a Interior or Exterior. The very specification of the concept "interior" to a form of a mug makes it a "landmark" if spoken about it being a final participant in a "in" category (because it is a place of location), and a "trajector" if spoken about it being a beginning participant in a "out" category (because it is an object in relation to the point of destination). In order for a container schema to become an in and out schema, such factors as profiling, and intent of placing a location was added.
THIS WORK IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND IS MEANT AS AN EXERCISE.
IT WILL BE RETOUCHED FOR MISSING SPOTS AND OUTRIGHT BLUNDERS.