How We Experience Life Through Answers, Questions, and Investigation
Untill death every defeat is psychological.
I will explore how we navigate life using three distinct mental faculties three “minds” that shape our understanding and decision-making:
The Answering Mind — the part of us that instinctively knows or believes it knows.
The Questioning Mind — the part that recognizes gaps in knowledge and seeks answers.
The Investigating Mind — the part that reconciles what we know and what we don’t, ensuring consistency between them.
By paying attention to these three mental processes, we can better understand our inner conflicts, how we resolve them (or fail to), and how similar ideas have appeared throughout history. Learning to distinguish and refine these three minds can help us live more harmoniously and support others in doing the same. This, in turn, lays the foundation for a more fulfilled life.
Historical Perspectives on the Three Minds
Philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists have long explored distinctions similar to these three mental faculties. The Answering Mind and the Questioning Mind have been framed in various ways across different disciplines:
Senses vs. Intellect — Aristotle, Augustine, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant, Brentano, James
Irrational vs. Rational — Psychotherapist Albert Ellis
Unconscious vs. Conscious
Emotion vs. Cognition — Neurologist John Hughlings Jackson
Pictorial vs. Verbal — Neuropsychologist Brenda Milner
Sensations vs. Representations — Hermann Lotze, Hermann von Helmholtz
Instinctual vs. Learned — Psychologist James Mark Baldwin
The Three Levels of Awareness
Each of these minds represents a different level of awareness:
1. Minimal Awareness (The Answering Mind)
Provides answers automatically but without explaining how it arrived at them.
Functions instinctively, unconsciously, and intuitively.
Summarizes our experiences into confident conclusions.
2. Increased Awareness (The Questioning Mind)
Recognizes uncertainty and asks questions.
Works consciously, conceptually, and rationally.
Builds, updates, and revisits models of possibilities.
3. Maximal Awareness (The Investigating Mind)
Ensures the other two minds are aligned.
Willing to let go of previous conclusions and reconsider information from scratch.
Oversees which mental process should guide our actions.
We move fluidly between these levels of awareness, sometimes without realizing it. Additionally, there may be an underlying “zeroth level” of non-awareness a realm of unconscious processes that influence us without our direct perception. While the Answering Mind also operates mysteriously, we at least recognize its role in providing answers.
How We Commonly Talk About These Minds
In everyday language, we often refer to the Answering Mind as the unconscious (“My unconscious tells me…”) and the Questioning Mind as the conscious (“I consciously know…”). The Investigating Mind, which has the highest level of self-awareness, aligns with what we call consciousness (“I am fully conscious of…”).
A useful metaphor is that of a stage:
The Unconscious (Answering Mind) sets up the scene, placing objects and actors.
The Conscious (Questioning Mind) shines a spotlight, selectively focusing on certain elements.
The Investigating Mind acts as the director, orchestrating the scene with deliberate awareness.
The purpose of this article is to explore these three minds in depth, along with other important conceptual structures. By drawing on historical and cultural examples, i aim to show how these mental processes manifest across different traditions, disciplines, and frameworks.
Understanding these three minds can transform how we think, learn, and interact with the world. By refining our awareness of them, we can achieve greater clarity, resolve inner conflicts, and foster deeper intellectual and emotional growth.
Knowing and Not Knowing
You can Imagine two minds having a conversation: one that knows and one that does not know. Now, think of a third mind that acts as a kind of facilitator between the two. Many thinkers throughout history have pointed out certain traits that separate the knowing mind from the not knowing mind. These traits highlight the fundamental difference between knowing something and not knowing it.
Interestingly, while the third mind — the one that helps make sense of this difference — is usually left unmentioned, it plays a crucial role. Without it, the relationship between knowing and not knowing wouldn’t be as clear.
If we focus on the actual knowledge these minds have (or lack), we can see a kind of dialogue between them. This back-and-forth can be understood through the logical square of classical logic. It shows how the same piece of information can be looked at from two different angles: one expressing knowledge and the other expressing a lack of it. In a way, it’s like seeing two sides of the same coin.
“I was conscious that I knew nothing at all.” — Socratic
Dialogue Between Knowing and Not Knowing
The concept of the dialogue between knowing and not knowing can be observed throughout philosophy and thought. Below is a structured presentation of how various thinkers and philosophical traditions have approached the relationship between these concepts:
1. Socratic Philosophy:
- Socrates (c. 399 BCE):
- Knows: Thinks one knows
- Not Know: Knows nothing
- Synthesis: Be conscious of one’s own ignorance
- Quote: I was conscious that I knew nothing at all.
2. Romantic and Enlightenment Thought:
- William Blake (1794):
- Knows: Experience
- Not Know: Innocence
- Synthesis: Solidarity
- Also: The contrast between what is and what is not
3. Eastern Philosophy:
- Tiantai Buddhism (c. 580 CE):
- Knows: Existence
- Not Know: Emptiness
- Synthesis: The Middle Way (integration of both)
- Related Concepts: Assertion, Negation, Integration
4. German Idealism and Dialectics:
- Immanuel Kant (1781):
- Knows: Synthetic a posteriori
- Not Know: Analytic a priori
- Synthesis: Synthetic a priori
Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1794):
- Knows: Thesis
- Not Know: Antithesis
- Synthesis: Synthesis (resolution of the conflict)
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1817):
- Knows: Fixed concept
- Not Know: Engendered opposite
- Synthesis: Revealed unity (dialectical progression)
The Logic of Success and Failure
Success and failure can be thought of as guided by two different types of logic:
- The Logic of Success:
- This is often driven by the lucky, intuitive mind.
- Success can sometimes seem like a result of gut feeling or intuition, where things just fall into place without a clear, rational path.
- This mindset tends to rely on instinct and immediate insight rather than careful calculation.
2. The Logic of Failure:
- On the other hand, failure often follows the path of the unlucky, rational mind.
- This logic is counterfactual it tries to analyze what went wrong by methodically examining past actions.
- It involves careful consideration of mistakes, risks, and unfortunate outcomes.
Why We Need Both Logics:
Learning solely from success isn’t enough. We must also understand and learn from failure, especially when it comes to avoiding harm (like death or injury).
Get Adith Garg’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
This dual approach helps us build models that anticipate risks and guide us in choosing the right strategy whether it’s relying on intuition when luck favors us or using rational analysis to mitigate potential failures.
This blend of logics also sheds light on why oracles and traditions have been valued throughout history they represent the attempt to bridge intuition and rational foresight, helping us decide which logic to apply in uncertain situations.
There’s a fascinating concept known as the transcendentals: beauty, good, and truth. Sometimes, this trio expands to include unity, forming a tetrachotomy. These concepts reflect the latent expectations of three different types of minds, highlighting the purities, unities, and essences that naturally attract each mind.
The Three Minds and Their Attractions
The sensory, unconscious mind is attracted to beauty. This mind responds instinctively, drawn to aesthetic pleasure.
The questioning, calculating, conscious mind is attracted to good. This mind seeks morality and rightness through conscious effort and deliberation.
The investigating, governing mind is attracted to truth. This mind aims to harmonize the other two by seeking correspondence and accuracy.
Regardless of which mind is at play, the ultimate goal remains unity a harmonious blend of beauty, good, and truth.
The Ideal Sweetheart
An ideal partner somehow embodies all three of these qualities. They appear beautiful, captivating the senses. They act with goodness, doing the right thing. They are true, being genuine and consistent in who they seem to be. This combination makes them absolutely lovable.
John Levi Martin, in his paper The Birth of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful: Toward an Investigation of the Structures of Social Thought, traces the origins of this trichotomy.
As early as ancient Greece, the historian Herodotus described the ideal warrior using the phrase “kalos kagathos” (meaning beautiful and virtuous). The word “and” (k) emphasizes that the ideal is not just beautiful, nor just virtuous, but both. This is one of the oldest known representations of the three-mind concept.
In 1711, the Earl of Shaftesbury linked beauty, good, and truth.
In 1820, John Keats associated beauty with immortal work and the love of principle.
In 1916, Max Scheler expanded the idea to include contrasts: beautiful/ugly, right/wrong, true/false.
At first glance, the trio of beauty, good, and truth may seem unrelated like a mix of incongruous animals. But what if we imagine them differently?
Beauty is like the flower, attracting attention and delight.
Good is the bee, drawn to the flower for sustenance.
Truth is the pollen, carried by the bee from one flower to another, allowing flowers to proliferate.
Together, they form a cycle of connection and continuity, where each element supports the other.
Aristotle, in his Rhetoric, identified three distinct grounds for gaining assent or agreement: pathos, logos, and ethos. These appeals correspond to the three minds, each of which responds differently based on its nature.
The unconscious mind responds to pathos — an appeal to emotion and instinctive reaction.
The conscious mind responds to logos — an appeal to logic and reasoned thinking.
Consciousness itself responds to ethos — an appeal to character, credibility, and moral integrity.
Aristotle saw this structure as fundamental to rhetoric, logic, and dialecticeach method addressing a different way of processing and responding to information.
Perspectives and Their Depth
The relationship between these three concepts can also be seen as onefold, twofold, and threefold perspectives.
Onefold perspective represents a singular, straightforward view, such as consumption in Marx’s theory.
Twofold perspective represents a dual or comparative outlook, such as production.
Threefold perspective represents an integrated, multi-dimensional understanding, such as distribution and exchange.
Examples of threefold structures:
Karl Marx (1857): Consumption, Production, Distribution and Exchange
Charles Sanders Peirce (1867): Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness (a framework for categorizing experience)
Active Inference (2022): Enactive, Predictive, Cybernetic
I am God, You are God, They are God
The Three Minds and Selfishness
The answering mind is naturally selfish, seeking gratification and immediate response.
The questioning mind is selfless but can still be manipulated to serve selfish ends.
The investigating mind manages to make selfishness serve selflessness, ultimately fostering genuine selflessness.
Emptying the Mind
The concept of emptying the mind follows a threefold pattern, as seen in philosophical and cultural references.
Daoism (c. 325 BCE): Gentleness, Economy, Shrinking from taking precedence of others
Dōgen (1237): Motherly, Joyful, Vast
Pete Townshend (1969, from “Pinball Wizard”): Pinball wizard, Engaging the mirror, Deaf, dumb, blind
What, How, and Why
The three minds can also be mapped to What, How, and Why from an idealist perspective.
What represents the immediate, the answering mind.
How reflects the process, the questioning mind.
Why functions as a pause or brake, allowing How to shift back to What when released, transforming Why into Whether.
This cycle resembles the Perception-Action Loop, where consciousness acts as a brake, pausing to reassess before taking action.
The concept of three minds and their dynamics can relate to the equation of life by illustrating how humans balance instinct, reason, and morality. Each mind plays a part in understanding life’s purpose by balancing desire (pathos) with logic (logos) and moral conscience (ethos). Integrating selfish impulses with selfless actions ultimately leads to harmonious living.
The three minds can be understood as expressions of What, How, and Why from an idealist perspective.
- What represents the immediate, the answering mind.
- How reflects the process, the questioning mind.
- Why functions like a brake, allowing How to shift to What upon release, at which point Why becomes Whether.
- Whether is akin to God, as it signifies the ultimate choice or existence.
This structure resembles the Perception-Action Loop, where consciousness acts as a brake, pausing to reassess before taking action.
Creating Tension: Four Voices
Tension arises when four distinct voices interact, each representing a different aspect of the mind:
- Reality forces — Objective reality pressing on the mind.
- Unconscious commands — Instinctual impulses guiding action.
- Conscious explanations — Rationalizing and making sense of experiences.
- Consciousness caring — Providing moral or emotional context.
These voices interact similarly to mathematical models, where tension forms between unreflected and reflected states.
Mathematical Analogy
Mathematical concepts can illustrate how the three minds interact:
- Rotations and rotoreflections: Compare linear and antilinear operators.
- Complex conjugation as reflection: Consciousness functions as a brake, holding back the transition from unconscious to conscious.
- Transistor analogy: Consciousness acts like a virtual unconscious, controlling the flow between the unconscious and conscious.
More Examples of the Three Minds
Galileo initiated modern science by splitting reality into quantitative (scientific) and qualitative (subjective) realms. This division aligns with the three minds as follows:
- Unconscious: Instinctive, intuitive responses (first person)
- Conscious: Rational, deliberate actions (second person)
- Consciousness: Reflective, integrating understanding (third person)
- Wondrous Wisdom: Higher-order synthesis that harmonizes the three
Real-Life Parallels
- Grammar: First person, second person, third person
- Narration: Perspective shifts between self, other, and the world
- Family Roles: Mother (nurturing), Father (guiding), Child (learning)
- Gender Stereotypes: Female (intuition), Male (logic)
- Mind Types: Autonomous (unconscious), Algorithmic (conscious), Reflective (consciousness)
- Decision Models: Descriptive (facts), Normative (values), Prescriptive (actions)
- Personality Dynamics: Personality (individual traits), Character (consistent values), God (transcendent ideal)
Dialogues of the Three Minds
- Answer, Question, Investigation: Exploring the known, unknown, and the pursuit of new knowledge.
- Direct, Model, Apply: Taking action, creating frameworks, and implementing solutions.
- Dialogue Forms: Child, Parent, Grandparent (status-free); Woman, Man, Child (gender-free)
- Attractions: Beauty (aesthetic), Good (ethical), Truth (factual)
- Personal Perspectives: I, You, Other
Flow of Experiences: The Three Minds
The interaction between the three minds can be visualized as a Flow of Experiences, where tension arises between the unconscious impulse, the conscious decision, and the consciousness that mediates the two.
- Emotion-Cognition Loop: The boundary between self and world shapes feelings like sadness or surprise.
- Truths of the Heart and the World: Integrating emotional insight with logical understanding.
