paradigms of altered states of consciousness, particularly SC and MLC suggest a
potential for such an expanded awareness that seems to access extrasensory data
and non-ordinary realms or dimensions of place not available to ordinary waking
consciousness. I t is the function of this chapter then, to examine the nature and
evolution of consciousness and its relationship to soul or psyche. However, a
caveat; I use the term ‘psyche’ here as Jung did, as an a priori entelechy; consisting
of everything that is conscious and associated with the ego, the unconscious and
also the psychoid system (von Franz, 1988:4). I t is important to note also that the
Greek word psyche means soul: ... the soul is naturaliter religiosa; the soul
possesses a religious function (Jung, CW 12, par. 14), and this is the sense in which
it is used in this dissertation, albeit the word religious is to be read as spiritual or
parapsychological.
The concept of consciousness is really quite a difficult one to understand, in
spite of the common usage of the term by professionals and lay alike. Neither
biology, nor physics, nor a combination of the two has been able to offer a
scientifically acceptable explanation of consciousness (Ansari, 1999:24). Some
scientists, for example, the Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, believe that neural circuits
can explain the physical mechanism of consciousness, in other words, consciousness
is but a mere epiphenomenon of brain functioning (Crick, 1994, chapters 2-5).
Torey shares a similar view that reflective awareness evolved within a closed system
and dismisses any form of panpsychism or animistic assumptions (Torey, 1999:xii).
Julian Jaynes describes eight possible theories of the nature of consciousness: (1)
consciousness as a property of matter, (2) as a property of protoplasm, (3) as
learning, (4) as a metaphysical imposition, (5) as mere epiphenomenon, (6) as
evolutionary, (7) as a misnomer for behaviourism, and (8) as the reticular activating
system (Jaynes, 1977:4-16).
None of these propositions offers any encouragement whatsoever in a
straightforward understanding of the origin, and more importantly, the nature of
consciousness. All of these possibilities posit consciousness within the framework
of some conventionally accepted or hypothesized scientific or philosophical
framework but they still do not explain what consciousness is and where it is
located. They tend, with the exception of Jaynes’ theories 1 and 4, to translate
psychological phenomena into neuro-anatomy or chemistry and conspicuously, at
the risk of exacerbating the dilemma, do not mention the words mind or psyche.
The research of physicist Roger Penrose seems to fit consciousness into the
ron
(Ron)
#1