Igor Bobko
October 1, 2026
1. The Initial Problem
Knowing is usually described as a movement from the unknown to the known: a person observes something, recognizes it, assigns it to a particular category, and thereby gains knowledge.
Yet categorization itself creates a separate problem.
When a new distinction arises, the subject may too quickly assign it to an existing category. From that point on, further inquiry proceeds not from the original distinction, but from the category through which it was interpreted.
At that moment, the category may cease to be perceived as the result of an operation of thought and begin to be perceived as a property of what is being investigated.
This is where the possibility of prematurely ending inquiry arises.
2. Distinction Precedes Category
Before something is named, explained, or incorporated into an existing model, it can be encountered as a distinction.
A distinction means a minimal fact: something has been encountered that cannot be identified without remainder with what is already known.
At this stage, it is not yet necessary to know:
- what it is;
- which category it belongs to;
- what caused it;
- whether an existing category is suitable for describing it at all;
- whether a new category needs to be created;
- whether the initial distinction will ultimately be preserved or dissolved.
A distinction therefore does not require an immediate explanation.
It can be held in the unknown.
3. Category Collapse
By category collapse, I mean the operation by which an encountered distinction is reduced too early to an existing category.
After such a reduction, inquiry may continue only within the boundaries of the chosen category.
For example, an observed phenomenon may immediately be declared:
- a function;
- an error;
- an illusion;
- a manifestation of a known mechanism;
- a special case of an existing theory;
- a subjective interpretation;
- a property of the object.
But the mere availability of a suitable category does not mean that the original distinction is truly exhausted by that category.
A category is a way of organizing a distinction, not the distinction itself.
If this boundary is no longer discerned, the result of one’s own operation of thought begins to be perceived as the immediate structure of reality.
4. Holding a Distinction in the Unknown
The central principle of the method is simple:
do not collapse an emerging distinction into a ready-made category as long as there remains a substantive possibility of working with it as a distinction in its own right.
Holding a distinction in the unknown means:
not asserting prematurely what it is;
not erasing it through the first available explanation;
not treating a category as final merely because it makes a consistent description possible;
preserving the possibility of returning to the original distinction;
allowing the boundaries of the categories in use to be revised;
preserving several possible ways of continuing to work with the distinction;
allowing new distinctions to change the very structure of the inquiry.
Here, the unknown is not a deficiency of knowledge.
It is preserved space for further distinction.
5. A Method of Knowing
In its limiting form, the method consists of several operations.
First, the subject encounters a distinction.
The subject then separates the distinction itself from the interpretation of it that has already arisen.
Next, the categories through which the distinction is being explained are identified.
The subject then examines whether a category truly exhausts the original distinction or merely translates it into familiar language.
If a remainder of the distinction persists, it should not be erased for the sake of a complete explanation.
It remains an object of inquiry in its own right.
Further knowing proceeds not by demanding that the unknown be named as quickly as possible, but through the successive emergence of new distinctions.
Each new distinction may:
refine a previous category;
divide one category into several;
show that a previous category does not apply;
create a new category;
change the boundaries of the object of inquiry itself;
show that what was previously taken to be the object was the result of one’s own operation of description.
Thus, the aim of the method is not the greatest possible speed of categorization, but preserving the ability to distinguish after the first explanation has already become available.
6. Category Remains a Tool
The method does not call for abandoning categories.
Without categories, language, comparison, theory, and the transmission of knowledge would be impossible.
The problem lies not in categorization itself, but in losing the distinction between:
what was encountered,
and
what was used to describe what was encountered.
A category must remain a reversible operation.
The subject must retain the ability to set it aside in thought and return to the original distinction.
If this becomes impossible, the category begins to determine the boundaries of what can be seen at all.
7. Knowing Need Not End in Closure
The usual model of knowing often assumes that successful inquiry must end in a determination: the object has been established, the mechanism found, the category chosen.
But another kind of result is possible.
One can establish that the available categories are not yet sufficient.
One can preserve a distinction.
One can define the boundary of the unknown more precisely.
One can discover that an earlier explanation conflated different phenomena.
One can establish that a question was formulated within a category whose applicability itself requires investigation.
Such a result is not an absence of knowledge.
It increases the resolving power of thought.
8. Flat Mind and Deep Mind
The distinction between Flat Mind and Deep Mind can be defined by their relation to the moment of categorization.
Flat Mind seeks to make a distinction known as quickly as possible through an existing category.
After categorization, further inquiry takes place mainly within the frame already chosen.
Deep Mind can hold a distinction apart from the first available category.
It need not reject the category, but retains the ability to regard it as provisional, local, and open to revision.
The distinction remains available for further work even after an explanation appears.
The depth of thought is therefore determined neither by the amount of information nor by the complexity of the theory used.
It is determined by the ability not to erase a distinction with an explanation too soon.
9. Inquiry as the Preservation of Possibility
Inquiry does not end when the first category appears.
It ends when the subject can no longer draw a new distinction from the object under investigation, or consciously accepts the existing description as sufficient for a particular task.
Until then, the unknown may remain.
This means that knowing is not only the production of answers.
It is also the preservation of a space in which a question can still emerge.
10. The Formula of the Method
The method can be condensed into a short sequence:
encounter a distinction → do not collapse it → separate what is observed from the category imposed on it → hold the distinction in the unknown → continue to distinguish → revise categories → preserve the possibility of returning to the original distinction.
In its shortest form:
do not erase the unknown with a category.
A category can become a tool of inquiry.
It must not become the reason for ending inquiry.
