Some persons think that “mind studying mind” leads to the paradoxes of self-reference and to infinite regress but I think that that follows only on certain models of the world

I think: consciousness is not restricted to humans or to “higher” animals but also occurs in lower creatures. In so thinking I have to generalize, reconceptualize the very nature and meaning of consciousness

It is like a concept from physics. The words “electricity” and “magnetism” were used 200 years ago at which time they were separate, relatively restricted, and somewhat isolated concepts. At present we know that all of matter has an electromagnetic nature, that such phenomena pervade the universe since its origins... so that the words are the same but the concepts, “then and now”, although related, are different... and the relationship is somewhat one of inclusion

Consciousness is similar except that I think a lot of writers are still in some previous century with regard to their concepts of consciousness

But if a concept is to advance it must be intertwined with new phenomena, experiments and techniques. I have elaborated some thought, experience and experiments in this direction

Neuroscience, materialism, behaviorism are important but do not address the nature of consciousness nor do they study the phenomena

Some suggestions and experiences have been made by me and are elaborated in letters in my descriptions of self observation: that is, bringing up the contents of mind to a conscious level and this relates to another hypothesis ‑ that the “unconscious” is a key to ultimate being. The quotes here are meant to draw attention to the idea that the unconscious is not so much invisible as not seen

At the same time I also argue that the introspective process, banned in the 19th century is not other than science... for it is “introspection” that informs of the existence of psychology... that there is something to study in psychology

But there already exist ancient traditions in the study and exploration of mind and its depths: examples: Australian Aboriginal myth and practice... and closer to home in the traditions of Veda, Upanishad, and yoga

But to make this study complete the study of mind must be integrated with the study of matter. And so one must move by organic necessity and not by artifice into ontology

If “lower” creatures are conscious ‑ I have argued that they are and a complete argument will require a reconceptualization of consciousness ‑ then different parts of our bodies are conscious and we have multiple centers of consciousness with the acute form of consciousness that is usually labeled consciousness being the currently dominant mode

Some use a term such as non-conscious awareness to refer to what I call the less dominant, more diffuse modes but I do not think that this is either necessary or good

Some argue that consciousness is not a final form of evolution. But consciousness is a form of relationship and what is there beyond relation and being? There is room for consciousness to expand beyond where it is now. But if consciousness ‑ as I argued above ‑ is pervasive throughout being then it must have been primally present and therefore there may be evolution of intensity and clarity and other features but not of the fact of consciousness

I frequently use a heuristic reasoning that I believe can be cleaned up later... Thus I believe that the conceptual and empirical ideas that I have and that various traditions such the philosophical tradition of India have had provide the basis of a science of consciousness and mind that will probe concepts, realities, meanings, ultimates as well as facts

I also believe: all true ideas follow from the immediate and the simple

U: unconscious, universe, unknown, ultimate... this is suggestive of the nature of these

A “hypothesis:” Swimming in the unconscious, one makes acquaintance with the universe, with being

3. On the Distribution and Forms of Consciousness

An analogy was made with physics to show a need for revision of the concept of consciousness. An analogy can be made with biology [note: consciousness is sometimes considered to be a biological organ or feature to show direction for such revision.]

Consider the eye. Generalize: bio‑photoreceptor. Look in nature for forms of eye and simple forms of photosensitivity. This demonstrates the concept of form. In relation to consciousness ask: What is the elementary form of subjective experience? Look for concepts in analogy with photo‑receptivity

More generally, consider organism and ecosystem; and the above issues generalized from “single” organs to organ and ecosystem. Note: the reason for quotes is the somewhat arbitrary assignment of single function

Consider continuity. Look for a continuous gradation of forms from simple receptor in a stimulus-response pattern to complex eyes. Allow also for change in function and concept. For example: a hollow can become a collector of warmth, then a receptor of light, then a sensor... Allow for bifurcations and merging while continuity is maintained

Do the same with consciousness

Consider also multiple centers, multiple forms and modalities: map of mind, communication and barrier: sleep‑wake

Now consider evolution through the stages defined above. Consider also pervasion into the physical realm. How may I learn and what may I learn? How are the forms of consciousness to be seen and identified? I have written on this above and elsewhere and now the present approach rounds out the chain of logic

Deal with the issue: If everything is conscious then nothing is conscious. This is a significant issue and its consideration may teach me something. But it is not an impossible issue for consider the same issue applied to matter: if everything is material then nothing is material

4. Being, Phenomenology, and Existentialism

I have written [J95] that: “...if what is seen as a unity [my consciousness and being] is an interactive multiplicity [of relation, flux, becoming, diffusion of consciousness, matter...] then cannot what are seen as multiplicities [the universe,] be [conscious, relational] unities

By considering the fact of human existence I am moved by organic necessity into consideration of Being, Phenomenology, and Existentialism

5. What is matter? Mind and Matter

What is matter? Is it what is defined as matter in physics or philosophy? This concept or idea of matter changes as the fundamental concepts of physics change! Or is matter what is sensed? I touch this: this is matter; I see that: that is matter. I touch your heart: that is matter and I sense a connection with - with the ultimate and that is matter. This concept of matter, too, changes - it is the matter of being in Being, which includes growth and evolution

In the second meaning anything that I apprehend is matter. It is what I sense but “sense” is being used in an extended meaning here. It is in the meaning of perception over thought [Goethe] - in the meaning that in being in Being, in being without beginning or end all is sensing and perception. All mind is an instrument of perception: I see, I wait and see, I act and see. And so, ultimately, all judgment is perception. Note that in this second meaning ideas themselves are not necessarily sensed or apprehended

It may be argued that when I say that I touch your heart the word “touch” is being used metaphorically. It is merely metaphorical if I am thinking - merely - romantically. But in reverting to that usage I would be reverting to a whole system of degraded meanings: matter as inert, romance, mind and feeling as ephemeral. Touching your heart is not metaphorical when I refer to a situation in which I affect your mood and behavior by connection through feeling and emotion and if I avoid degraded meanings

This concept of matter, based in the fullness of being and which puts being before atomization of concepts, cuts the Gordian knot of mind-matter dualism and shows being’s finitude - within an encapsulated apace and with a beginning and an end - to be merely apparent; it shows that we are continuous with Being, with the ultimate. This is already known by rocks, hills and grass, snails and earth, by wolves and by primal human being

Therefore this second idea of matter is not a mere defined concept: it is grounded in the heart of being, in the heart of the universe - for humankind is, in my view as much as any other biological or non-biological species, the essence of being in rather than alien to the universe

“Air is established in my breath

My breath in my heart. My heart in me

Myself in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman”

Trs. Taittriya Brahmana

What is the difference between matter as object of apprehension and as the subject of the disciplines? The teachings of science and philosophy supplement but do not replace primal knowledge. Einstein said that science is continuous with common knowledge