Nature of Consciousness



Nature of Consciousness

In a kind of comprehensive overview of approaches, Ken Wilber has a post on the Web taken from his Journal of Consciousness Studies article  (February 1997, pp. 71-92) and which outlines his Integral Theory of Consciousness. It  integrates twelve different approaches to apparently understanding the nature of consciousness. These include  the approaches of cognitive, introspective, neuro-psychological, clinical psychological & psychiatric, social and developmental psychological, psychosomatic, eastern and contemplative traditions, quantum theories, subtle energy studies and adventures into non-ordinary and drug-induced states.  The list is long enough to certainly make the subject matter confusing to some. To make matters worse, we could expand that list profoundly. Where then do we truly understand the core essence of consciousness? Is there a core binding-together essence or a disintegration into so many forms?

In most all other studies of life one can garnish a specialized expertise. But the study consciousness potentially can involve all of life and all of knowledge that we consciously take in ad infinitum. How then again do we arrive at its core essence? An essence is something that universally penetrates and thus is singular and simple – like the essence of a chocolate bar being made of chocolate. We might add an almond to the bar, but what primarily permeates remains simply chocolate. Is there a comparable essence to consciousness, or something that unifies the whole – in and throughout all of the potential categorizations or approaches. In my experience the answer is yes. However, to arrive at the seeing of what that is takes a vastly transcending mental, beyond the right/brain split perspective.  You almost have to step outside and above the human mind/brain and its perpetual constructs to reach such a high perspective.

Supposing you get that far, how do you know that your conclusions are trans-personally or objectively true – true from all sides and past side-views, subjectivity and limited biases? There is really a Litmus Test. Our modern world is presently plagued with a variety of what I call growing consciousness diseases. It can be argued that all diseases are really carriers of a consciousness-depleting element. Some are so more dramatically than others. Thus we can have cancer that silently or without our consciousness spreads to kill us. We can become severely diabetic, and where when we step on a nail we feel nothing as we suffer from neuropathy – a loss of feeling, a loss of consciousness in the extremities primarily. We can fall also into the throws of Alzheimer’s disease where our mental consciousness breaks down. Now if a theory of consciousness can be tested in its applications to help reverse all three of these and similar condition,  then we really and powerfully are onto something. With out such proof, we remain groping in the dark just as the patients with those ailments may be too.

After nearly half a century of searching for such a viable theory, I can  honestly share my conclusion that there is such an animal. Most philosophers and scientists won’t make this kind of assured statement. I do because my experiences transcended my own personal identity or concern with such an identity. The implications of that “theory” I am referring to are revolutionary. The application are more than immensely powerful. For when one has a far better understanding of consciousness,. it  can truly help those who have let it slip away, unconsciously – which seems a terribly helpless state. When physicians try to help such patients, but they can’t, they too are at a loss to understand what consciousness is, why we need a transcending understanding.

This “theory” is such an understanding. Its implications are profound. When understood, it has the vast potential to not only help those who are consciousness-ill, but to more so overturn the very taproot foundations of our whole modern worldview or vision of the essence of nature. This may seem a very bloated statement indeed. But, nevertheless, in my experience it happens to be true. The fact is that what we take to be  our very highest truths in physics and chemistry – buttressed by mathematical formulations as the anchoring crutch, actually fail to factor in the existence, identity, or nature of consciousness in nature.

Once on does factor in that phenomena, everything else changes. As to this “theory” (written in quotation marks because it has ceased to be a theory for me)  it is the core mission of this blog and of our original and related site, namely
to bring out to the public this understanding.

With that said, now let me present the gist of this theory states of consciousness’ defining identity. Through that special identity we can fathom it in a conquering way. I’ve not learned this via any lab studies because a laboratory setting and all the tools of measurement it coalesces are actually the wrong tools with which to understand consciousness’ essence. Rather my “theory” is the  result of other experiences. In my youth I was a math prodigy whose left-brain shut down temporarily forcing me to befriend an opposite brain vista. Later I tried to make peace between the split-brain views. Through that reconciliation, I came up with what I consider a piercing of the veils of consciousness. This requires super normal skills. I don’t state that to bloat my ego but simply because the need for transcendent is a given.

With this introduction now let me outline a set of words that for me best point to the quintessence of consciousness.  Consciousness can be seen as the primary potentially universal relationship of connection in and throughout all of nature. It thereby forms nature’s core essence and the basis for nature’s  oneness.

Our math-based vision of nature no loner holds true if our definition of consciousness is valid. The nature of consciousness supplants what math symbols point to in defining the essence of our world. Just imagine how profound the implications of this simple statement are. Math symbols generally abstract how to separate all elements of consciousness. Given the prior definition of consciousness, however, math symbols then cannot possibly point us to the essence of nature. This violates of central and thought to be bedrock thesis of chemistry and physics – the deep assumption that mathematics offers a universal paradigm for integrating the objective understanding of the oneness of nature. Again the preceding definition denies that.

Many think that consciousness is solely the byproduct of  human evolution as animals and plants presumably are not really, truly conscious or at least as cognitive and self-conscious.  To move to a more nature-permeating definition of consciousness, as in pansychism, requires proof or a Litmus test. Again suppose we can use our “theory” to actually reverse the most persistent consciousness illnesses. The details are outlined in this blogs.  Without such proof, the theory would only be a set of empty words promoted by our egos. With such backup evidence, we can advance our understanding of the world we live in – and of ourselves.

This is no small statement.

About the Author

- Sign Up For Our Newsletter. Get Free Tips and Advice on Natural Living and More. Sign Up Today @

Displaying 3 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. When one views the issue at hand, i have to agree with your finishes. You clearly show cognition about this theme and i have much to discover after reading your post.Many salutations and i will come back for any further updates.

  2. insurance says:

    The Scientific Method consists of observation and repeatable experimentation. Creation, by definition, was not observable by anyone within the bounds of this universe. And it is beyond our power to repeat the experiment. Therefore, the whole debate about origins is a philosophical, not scientific, debate. A basic philosophical axiom is that if your foundational assumptions are wrong, then the conclusions drawn from those assumptions are also wrong. Let’s examine the unprovable, foundational assumptions about each philosophy: Evolution states that in the beginning there was nothing, that became something, got itself organized, gave itself life, and then made itself better. Christianity states that in the beginning there was God, who created the world and everything in it in perfect harmony. Then Adam and Eve rebelled, and sin and death entered the world. But, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:16 If you bbelieve in evolution based on faith, because the beginning is not verifiable. I believe in the God of the Bible based on faith, because the beginning is not verifiable. Which belief system requires the greater faith? I only know of One who there at the beginning. I choose to believe His first hand, written account, instead of placing my faith in the assumptions made by those who were not there at the beginning.

  3. batalionn says:

    To respond to fukuda8@gmail. Thanks for your lengthy comment. Let me share my view, I hope you don’t take it to be unfaithful but I personally don’t subscribe to “a creation of all creations.” Thus whether anyone was there or not would then – and no one could be since human beings weren’t created yet – becomes not as relevant is there is no such thing to begin with (pun lol)….. but in our imagination. As to the scientific method being ideally based on just observation, that is all fine in theory. The more important trick, however, is not to structure that observations based on either personal or culturally-grounded, peer-shared belief – imbeded in most conceptual or ideological constructs. The latter detoxification of consciousness is very hard to avoid…. unless one empties (fasts) the mind, which takes letting go and humility skills. The western worldview is grounded in a strongly left-brain dominant perspective inherited from the ancient Greeks, not free of all projected constructs. It especially projects the mechanical, math-based viewpoint. Imposing this later cultural orientation blocks a real substantive science of consciousness to evolve, grow and take root.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Free Newsletter