Where philosophy of mind ends, thus begins psychology

The search for an objective foundation of the mind
seems to be a never-ending Sisyphean nightmare.

So we need to identify those aspects of mind that
are undeniable (except to the habitual contrarian).

Kant identifies the analytic and synthetic faculties.
But where is emotion here? Creativity?

It seems clear that in common discourse we separate
the IQ from the EQ readily, and that logic and emotion
are thus two halves of the mind.

Can we then equate emotion with synthetic thought
and call it creativity? (In opposition to logic).

Plenty of folk deride emotions and creativity as being
a weakness to be avoided. Priding themselves on their
'logical nature'. And thus they find themselves in a
permanent nightmare of wars. War is illogical they
might want to believe, but it is the culmination of
logic alone to dominate or die.

Then they weep for peace when defeated.

So we return to psychology, and the most fundamental
structure stripped of verbosity and endless texts:

Jung :-

The 5 quintessential faculties of mind epitomized by
the ancient Greek Gods: Anger, Love, Sadness, Joy &
Enlightenment. (The 5 visible planets: Ares, Venus,
Saturn, Jupiter, and Mercury)

Or
Freud :-
Id, Ego, Superego.

Or
we can turn to the most ancient source, the Vedics,
and their excellent system of chakras:
Wisdom, Intellect, Communication, Emotion,
Geometry, Vitality, Health.

5, 3 or 7. Either way need to see these modes of
awareness in a numerical format: a division of being,
in order to describe them with words.

But let us also see that Freud's separation is a dichotomy
because more intrinsic is the observation of conscious
and unconscious. The line between consciousness and
unconsciousness is the famous: sub-conscious; being the
point of becoming conscious.

So is that now 9 faculties for Freud?

Can you find a more useful way to describe mind than
any of these?

Remember to be foundational it needs to be reducible to
fewest core components. But these need to deliver
functionality in comprehending mind.

It is hardly meaningful to study philosophy of mind
without immersing oneself into the quagmire of psychology.

And yet, any mind that has not suffered to rigour of math
will flail about in the maelstrom of verbosity.

And yet so much that passes for math is sophistry in the
extreme without any ability or attempt to br rooted in
the empirical world.

The unforgiving world of computer algorithms will soon
show up who can think in terms of genuine logic, and
who follows its forms in style and applies random
synthesis of labels which have the outside appearance,
but lack all substance.

This is why it is ironic that I have to conclude:
If you cannot construct something like an evolutionary
solar system, examining for yourself the categorical
difference between Newtonian physics and Einstein's
woeful attempt; if you cannot do something like that,

then

you will continue to flounder in wordiness and a clutching
of straws by straw-men.

... and where psychology ends, thus begins:

computer programming.