The last few months I have been following my first philosophy class, on theories of consciousness in Eastern and Western thought. In order to define the essence of consciousness, many questions need answering, such as:
- What is the relationship of consciousness to thought?
- Can consciousness itself ever be known?
- Does consciousness mirror reality, or does it create reality?
- Where and how does consciousness arise?
- What is a person, how is the self related to consciousness?
At the end of the course I wrote an essay regarding my own point of view on the subject. The thing is, I have only a very vague opinion about the subject, and personally I don't mind keeping it that way. My answer to the questions above have little meaning, since there are numerous other explanations as valid as mine. But as I was writing the essay, I did form a theory about consciousness and the self. I used the metaphor of an ocean to describe what consciousness might be like (it was only afterwards that I stumbled on similar, though not identical metaphors on the internet) and I noticed that this image gave rise to some interesting ideas. Just a little thought experiment - the following is an excerpt from my essay.
What is the relationship of consciousness to thought? Descartes and others thought that consciousness underlies thought, as if it is the stage on which plays are performed. But perhaps thought does not need to occur on a substrate. I am more inclined to agree with the so-called mosaic model, the view that consciousness does not differ from thought, but instead is built up of thought. Without thought, there would be no consciousness at all. I must add, however, that I do believe one can be conscious without consciously thinking - the concept of consciousness must include a state of no-thought. In such a state, there is no complete absence of thought, but one would not experience actual individual ideas and emotions. Thought would be undifferentiated and calm, as an ocean without waves.
In investigating the true nature of consciousness, one of the first questions that should be posed is whether it is even possible to succeed in this aim or not - a question related to the one I have brought up in the introduction of this paper. If consciousness underlies thought, how can one know it? Knowing is an ability of the mind, which would be absent during the state of pure consciousness. The stage would be empty, the actors no longer present to contemplate what is beneath their feet. However, if we assume that consciousness is the sum of all thoughts (conscious and subconscious), the question is wether or not knowing can know itself. I will not set this possibility aside, but it would require thought to be like the still ocean. As there would be no active thoughts one could only know one’s pure consciousness subconsciously. When we think about ourselves, we think about the waves breaking on the shore. This is only a small part of our self, of the consciousness that we are, but it is the only part that we consciously know.
In this metaphor of consciousness, conscious thought is symbolized by waves breaking on the shore. Reality itself is the cause of these waves at the edge of our consciousness, and influences their behavior. One could say that this narrow strip of active consciousness mirrors reality, but it does not directly observe it. Reality stretches out far beyond the coast, to lands the ocean will never be able to conquer.
