In Defense of Higher Consciousness

In Defense of Higher Consciousness

Higher Consciousness and Altered States of Consciousness are totally things. I need not corroborate this claim, but I will explain why some deny it, to my chagrin, and why they are wrong.

Enculturation is the arrangement of symbols in such a way that perception is confined to certain rules. Imagine the mind as a series of switches. At times, enough of these switches are On, and they create a brilliant pattern of light and colour that we call the Universe. Yet whenever this occurs, Levitch’s scorned “Anti-Cruise” comes in, and it begins to flip them off. Having adequately silenced them, for it has “all the authority of Reason” and the Light has only the “authority of Tenacity and Faith”, Reason flatters its self like a pompous tyrant: See, there was never anything to that after all. In fact, in fact, this is a banal claim. All that Reason could fairly attest to is the current condition, once it has been subverted to Reason. The reasoning is circular: It is “only so” because it is “only so”, and we shall render it “merely so” to prove that it is “merely so”. The very process of thought is the flipping of switches – the re-arrangement of ideas and perceptions – in accord with an existing [set of] prejudice[s]. Most poets will attest to this.

All Life is a series of, as Foucault pointed out, Similarities and Differences. Every style of thinking, including Reason, is a different permutation of these facts. You would not KNOW how to deem one opinion superior to another were it not, as you should have to ultimately admit, a matter of aesthetic preference. Different ideas as seen to be related to each other in a way that creates a given aesthetic, such as Reasonable or Mad, et cetera. The nature of this aesthetic cannot be ultimately quantified in Words, for it is the Space of which Words are the Matter; it transcends words, and it MUST do so, for otherwise it would have no authority. Yet we usually, as Watts pointed out, pay attention to the Form and ignore the Background.

Every set of philosophical presuppositions and proclamations is thereby valued by the degree to which it creates a given state of consciousness. All arguments in favour of one style of thinking over another are appeals to preference; one values one state of consciousness over another. Philosophy is ultimately the exploration of states of consciousness, and it cannot be a discipline that exercises discretion were it not that some states of consciousness must thereby be labeled “higher” than others, or in some other way superior. (Let’s not belabor the semantics.)

To out-rightly deny someone’s experience in this respect is to be a poor philosopher. Theoretically, higher consciousness is available to anyone. At any rate, Truth cannot be expected to be readily available to all “Rational” beings, when many of its permutations are transrational. It is an attitude of ignorance and entitlement to demand proof for such as phenomenon without having worked to attain it. Philosophy can go in one of two ways now: Either the perpetuation of existing aesthetics through the manipulation of symbols, or through the exploration of new aesthetics by the same token, foregoing Familiarity for Novelty.

Dm.A.A.