Subtle Density:
Traversing Bandwidths of Consciousness

I see a lot of benefit to be derived from thinking of consciousness as a range of frequencies; a spectrum whose natural division into discrete bandwidths defines the boundaries of state-specific perceptions. By understanding consciousness as radiance, many of the same known laws governing the electromagnetic spectrum can be applied to comprehend the mechanics of subjectivity, objectivity, identity, and awareness.

Current Assumptions About The Nature of Consciousness

The currently fashionable Western view of consciousness as an internal biological function of the brain is both materialist and reductionist. Furthermore, it is a view built fundamentally upon 3 baseless assumptions, each of which I believe are flawed and will continue to limit the progression of consciousness research until the point they are re-examined:

1) Consciousness does not exist without a perceiver.
2) Consciousness begins and ends within the narrow bounds of human awareness.
3) The physical body is a prerequisite for physical perception.

I will address each of these related fundamental assumptions individually and as explicitly as possible, in such a way that the description may reveal the errors which underlie them.

1) Consciousness does not exist without a perceiver.

The assumed inseparability of consciousness and the experience of consciousness is without basis and limits our analysis of any individual component, either self or consciousness, as isolated from the other. One way to conceptualize a unified field of consciousness independent from a perceiver is to use our current understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum. Radio waves existed before the invention of the radio, and continue to exist as radiant frequency regardless of whether or not they happen to be picked up by a radio receiver. In the same way, consciousness can be thought to exist with or without our perception (or reception) of it. Additionally, our capacity of conscious awareness, like that of a radio, is of a limited range, which brings us to our second assumption…

2) The whole of consciousness begins and ends within the narrow bounds of human awareness.

The distinction of human awareness from the unified spectrum of consciousness it is immersed within, as afforded by identifying the first assumption as erroneous, inversely allows us to consider the broad range of frequencies extending both above and below the narrow bandwidth of the visible spectrum, for instance. By conceptualizing consciousness as carrier medium in this way, distinct from individual “modulators” and “receivers,” to return to our radio wave analogy, we reveal an irrational and egocentric assumption – that we, as humans, somehow define the range and center of consciousness. This Ergocentric view of ourselves as exclusive or special, with all consciousness “revolving” around our perceptual capacity, is not unlike the Geocentric view which dominated our understanding of the universe before the insights of those like Copernicus. No, it turns out, the universe does not revolve around us – and, likewise, there is no reason to assume all of consciousness and the electromagnetic spectrum revolves around us either!

To return again to our radio receiver analogy, simply because a radio cannot pick up very high microwave frequencies, for instance, does not mean that the microwave band does not exist — or that it could not, in theory, act as a carrier medium for intelligible modulations or communication. In this same way, there is no basis to assume that the ranges of frequency above and below our meager capacity of awareness are without conscious experience.

3) The physical body is a prerequisite for physical perception.

The assumption that our perception of objective externality requires a living body, with sensory organs and brain, or is a product of the brain, is without basis in either the full range of human experience or empirical research. The near cultural universality of accounts of out-of-body perceptions, extending from modern times back to the dawn of socialization and the skill set of the shaman, undermine this distinctly Western notion of a material necessity to physical perception

If the argument of consensus was not enough to call this assumption in to question, we may additionally look to the sleep research of Dr. Charles Tart, who tested and verified the legitimacy of out-of-body perceptions. However scant the number of researchers exploring this area of consciousness, we must acknowledge that the findings of the available studies suggest a non-physical or residual aspect of self which possesses verifiable physical perception.

The Benefits of a Spectral View of Consciousness

Here I was trying to describe the division of the spectrum into bound ranges of frequency, or bandwidths, each with its own set of perceptions and communications — a lot like radio stations.

By thinking of consciousness in this unified energetic form, we are afforded a means of mapping the various states of consciousness within a defined scale.

These thoughts have little outside influence, I admit. In the rare and extraordinary range of human experience, we can get a glimpse at some actuality normally hidden from our limited view — a momentary perspective of our place; a perspective of height.

I detest the materialistic paradigm dominating psychology today — if there is one place it does not belong, it is in the research of consciousness. Crude, narrow-minded, and childish, we need to outgrow our reliance on base physicality and embrace the higher realms of human potential.

What Is Consciousness?

Individual consciousness can be generalized broadly as response to a stimulus, as response is implicative of awareness.

From that basis, we need only define the ranges of awareness, that is, the differing sensate capacities, and the individual abilities to hold and reflect a stimulus (memory, perceptual processing, and expression.)

The benefit of defining individual consciousness as broadly as response to stimulus is that it extends the unified spectrum to include living and non-living things. That is to say, resonance is a response to stimulus and, so, this radiant energy is evidence of consciousness, albeit in its lowest form or “bandwidth” of awareness.

So when you knock or scream into a stone, it rings out a response specific to itself and to the expression it received from you. Its shape at that moment in time, and the intensity of your “message,” define the resonant frequency of its response. This personalized holding and reflecting of stimulus is evidence that consciousness exists or, as I prefer to say, that something is a “carriage” or “medium” of the a frequency of consciousness.

Subtle Density:

Traversing Bandwidths of Consciousness

The division of consciousness into a range of frequencies allows for a spectral model which binds differing modes of perception within certain bandwidths, which can explain all “tones” of personality, awareness, and the different aspects of cognition. For instance, often an individual notices or thinks of things that other people do not. In trying to understand where such a person is coming from when they try to express what is on their mind, it is common to describe needing to change or “shift” our perspective, in order to see from their point-of-view. This is not a literal change in our physical location, of course, but an inward “shift” upwards or downwards, to a different state of consciousness — the one from which that perception or mode of expression originated. That is to say, certain perceptions or ways of thinking are both born of and dependent on a requisite state of consciousness.

State-dependent perception

Key to the conception of state of consciousness as a point along a spectrum is frequency, or the vibratory nature of consciousness. While EEG has shown that our inward state is energetic and periodic in nature, the state of consciousness of an individual can be thought of moreso as a state of receptivity, with the actual “shaking” vibration and communication flowing inwards along a medium. This is where clearly delineating the “medium”, “modulator”, and “receiver” — those components present in all forms of communication — really helps to clarify the nature of consciousness, its bandwidths and their traversal.

The Hardening of Defensiveness  VS The Vulnerability of True Selfhood

I believe the ego is natural and, to some degree, even healthy.

The ego Gets Shit Done! 😀

I feel The Middle Way of Buddhism refers to a certain degree of flexibility in the ego. Where as it is so easy to become hardened in our defenses, their ideas and their routines, as we become older, conversely an individual completely lacking a social self can not benefit society. Like a guitar string, wound not too tight or too loose, so a balanced ego can serve our expression.

It helps me to think of it as a carapace: a hardened image of a previously genuine state of self. Brittle with exposure to harsh surroundings, this ego can be restrictive and must, occasionally, be shed as a sort of “rebirth” of genuine (and vulnerable) selfhood.

Shedding of An Older Self

Comments are closed.