what philosophy and psychology common share

the fundamental differences that lie

between philosophy and psychology

is that philosophy is looking for the collective principles that underscore but apply,

while psychology is looking at the self principles 

that operationally exist,

subject to be made evident.

both are kindred in the abstract of their existence.

but philosophy seeks for the thematic of culture,

while psychology lingers in traits personally carried forth.

one sees on a screen of self traits,

while the other views for the collective of mind.

psychology has an intimacy about it,

while philosophy has a proverbial point of view.

philosophy is ever oversimplified to mean,

while psychology is underdeveloped to cause.

are the two ever not in the same room

under the same reality onslaught,

predictably understated, 

yet fundamentally present from within and beyond?

one is the mysterious wave fronting the ocean,

while the other is the ocean backgrounding the wave.

curiously, if one asked,

what is the psychology of philosophy

or conversely, what is the philosophy of psychology,

do they eventually begin to common share

in definition and account?

both live lives of profound unsaidness within,

but the ground-figures as backdrops differ plainly.

one is a uniqueness of self,

while the other is the collective of self-perceived.

both suffer from the burden of belief imposed.

both incur from a state of being-well

as well as from a state of wellbeing.

yet if one is questioned from each of these states,

the origin of the answers forthcoming

are sourced from very different places within.

to speak of psychology is self justified,

while to speak of philosophy is self ordained.

the source place of those dialogues

is from very different places within the being.

this leads me to a very difficult question to ask.

metaphorically speaking,

if the sky could exist without clouds

could the clouds exist without sky? . . .