The Living Force
Well that's true. Usually we say that in order to solve a given problem, we have to go beyond the space in which the problem was posed. How can we go beyond our own consciousness?
Well, maybe instead of going beyond to another (higher level/order) space, solving the problem might include going around it (or/and about it) in its given space?
In a sense, like that old saying says, solution to a problem might appear while/when observing it from different sides/viewpoints.
I would expand the above adding into consideration the term "knowledge". Knowledge is probably as hard to define as consciousness, and these two are certainly related. Knowledge often comes from observations and is related to information. But there is also another kind of knowledge that does not rely on any observations. We may, for instance, "know" what our mission in life is, and it comes from a "realization" rather than observation. First we may have a vague feeling, and then one day, we suddenly "know for sure". Of course conscious and subconscious mind are involved, but not observations. Unless we count as observation observing our inner states.
Philosopher Popper wrote about knowledge in "Self and its brain" and later in his essay "Theory of knowledge" in his last book "A world of propensities"
What he has missed is the important fact that "Knowledge protects". That's the main function of knowledge. But this we know from other sources!.
This fact we know and Karl Popper lacked, "Knowledge protects", strongly implies that Knowledge, in a sense of its meaning is very much active and not some passive 'entity'.
With this in mind, could we say that knowledge about something and/or someone is realization of potentially conscious application(s) of information gathered about (and/or around) that something and/or someone?
Hm, when we include also "subconscious" to those "applications" and that knowing someone also implies some kind of a relation(ship) with him/her, we could change the above question about quasi-definition of knowledge to maybe, "learning about a potential application of something or/and an actual relation(ship) to the observer her/himself" instead?
Doing so, it appears to me, we would make this Knowledge direct product of Learning, for which we also know from our other sources that it's fun and all there is, in a sense of lessons as potential learning experiences, i.e. potential acquisition of knowledge.
With a quasi 'definition' like that, it appears to me that Knowledge now encompasses also the inner part/dimension of our realms/worlds, and not only "our inner states" consciously perceived (that we are aware of), but also subconsciously sensed (even without our conscious awareness).
I'm also wondering if we could say that "observing" is in fact "perceiving", with and/or without actually "noting it", like in consciously or/and subconsciously sensing, or maybe even more directly/concretely, could "observing" be quasi-defined as/like "sensing" itself?
With above quasi-definitions and/or something similar, it also appears to me that we could have kinda mathematical/metaphysical framework to discuss and research consciousness in material and/or spiritual worlds (simultaneously and/or separately) in terms of Concepts and their mutual relation(ships) or/and applications. And there language (e.g. with words and their meanings; though tinier units of meanings seem to exist within language) enters on the scene, as a mean of expression and info transfer about the Concepts and their relationships or/and applications.
Which brings us, in my view, to one of very important (ground) aspects in the quest for Science of Spirit (SoS, pun intended, and also quite appropriately acronym of Sound of Silence which is playing in the background of my earphones ),
An observation can not 'stand' alone, it is direct product of an observer sensing, i.e. observation is inextricably meshed up with the observer.
Does the above sound promising to you?
I would surely love some company on this pursuit for what appears to be our SoS transmitance signal.