A central problem of philosophy

To us a central problem of philosophy is to elucidate the relationship between the following three domains of (apparent) reality /experience:

1. logic and language

2. mind and consciousness

3. an objective or external world 

While the the relationship between 2 and 3 is a classical topic which has produced an immense literature,  the deeper problem seems to be the relationship between 1 and 2 and 1 and 3.

My question is: how can my anti-inferentialism and anti-anti-representationalism and anti-functionalism be expressed in terms of such relationships ? 

A preliminary and useful questions: what was logic and language for Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Hegel and Schopenhauer ? What was logic and language for Frege, Brentano and Husserl ? 

Why was not anti-psychologism accompanied by a corresponding anti-physicalism ? 

Another question: how does one's view of the relationship between 2 and 3 condition one's view of the relations 1-2 and 1-3 ? For instance, is the physicalist or idealist somehow conditioned in (or by) their views on logic and language ?

How are we to understand the theory that logic and language are precisely aspects of the self-interaction (self-reflection)  of a universal (super-individual) consciousness when to understand any process we must presuppose logic and language ?

Die Logik dagegen kann keine dieser Formen der Reflexion oder Regeln und Gesetze des Denkens voraussetzen, denn sie machen einen Theil ihres Inhalts selbst aus und haben erst innerhalb ihrer begründet zu werden. Nicht nur aber die Angabe der wissenschaftlichen Methode, sondern auch der Begriff selbst der Wissenschaft überhaupt gehört zu ihrem Inhalte, und zwar macht er ihr letztes Resultat aus; was sie ist, kann sie daher nicht voraussagen, sondern ihre ganze Abhandlung bringt dieß Wissen von ihr selbst erst als ihr Letztes und als ihre Vollendung hervor. (Hegel)

How can we apply logic and language to determine the relationship between logic and language themselves and something which is beyond logic or language ?

Can we develop the theory that a certain super-logical super-linguistic, non-logical and non-logical consciousness and cognition is necessary and useful ?  We have sketched a theory of analyticity based on computability and from this perspective the super-logical can been seen as unfolded in the hierarchy of degrees of hyper-computability. A logical pluralism which yet has nothing conventional or arbitrary about it.

Consciousness, experience, cognition, life...these are (at least potentially) infinitely more vast than abstract conceptual 'thought' in the ordinary sense of the word. We need to see thought as a multilayered structure and process part of a larger enveloping and grounding structure and process...

Also: I do not see any weighty argument against my own contention that the central problem of the philosophy of logic is simply: what is an argument, in particular what is a so-called 'valid' or 'persuasive' argument ? What is a sophistical argument (or a sophistical worldview) ?