Is consciousness an appendix to what I am?
Or is this human self an appendix to what I really am?
IN WESTERN CULTURE
In our western culture, language reveals that we tend to see consciousness as a kind of appendix.
How do we tend to talk about it?
We may say: I am a conscious being. I have consciousness.
Fundamentally, I am a being. I am this human self. And I have consciousness as a kind of appendix, as I have limbs, a house, an identity, and so on.
THE SOURCE AND INHERENT PROBLEMS OF THIS VIEW
That’s a view of separation.
Consciousness is somehow, magically, separate from what I more fundamentally am.
Just like humans are separate from nature. Body is separate from mind. The divine is separate from this world. The cost of our way of life is separate from us (externalized to others, ecosystems, future generations). And so on.
And that’s all a feature of our kind of domination culture.
There are many logical problems here, and there has to be since it’s all based on fundamental assumptions at odds with reality.
WHEN I LOOK MORE CLOSELY
Of course, this human self is here. He is around most of the time – during waking hours, and sometimes although not always in dreams1.
And when I look, I find I am more fundamentally something else.
I find I am what this human self – and the wider world and all content of experience – happens within and as. He and every other content of experience comes and goes, and I am more fundamentally the awake space forming itself into all these shifting appearances.
Even more fundamentally, I find I am capacity for all of it – this awake space and all it forms itself into.
THIS HUMAN SELF IS A KIND OF APPENDIX
In a certain way, and if I take some liberties with language, I can say this this human self is a kind of appendix.
He is not what I more fundamentally am. He comes and goes within content of experience, as everything else. What I am forms itself into the experience of him and the wider world and everything else.
AN IMAGINED REALITY VS WHAT I NOTICE IN IMMEDIACY
This is the difference between an imagined world and what I notice in immediacy.
The imagined world is an imagination of fundamentally being this human self in the world, and this human self somehow and magically has consciousness. It’s a third person view of the world. In terms of a third-person reality, it may be accurate to some extent, but it’s far from my own immediate noticing.
In my immediate noticing, I am this awake space that all of this – the screen, the black marks on the screen, these hands, the sounds of the keyboard, the sounds of the washing machine and the wind, the sun, these sensations, these words – happen within and as.
Even more fundamentally, I am capacity for all of it.
THE VALUE OF BOTH
The imagined world has value. It’s how most consciousnesses (I assume others are consciousness to themselves, as I am) seem to perceive it. It helps this human self orient and navigate in the world.
And yet, I cannot say anything for certain about any of it. It’s all guesses. (Although some are more grounded and reasonable than others.)
What I can say something about is what I notice in immediacy. That’s my reality, whether I consciously notice it or not. And it does make a difference to notice it.
AM I IN THE WORLD, OR IS THE WORLD IN ME?
That’s one way to talk about it, and there is a simpler way to point to this:
Am I in the world?
Or is the world in me? Is this world – with this human self, others, the wider world, thoughts, sensations, sight, sound – in me?
NOTES
1 ) And not at all when there is just consciousness without much if any content, as can happen when there is awakeness during deep sleep. For whatever reason, although I am familiar with it, and it does clarify the essence of my nature, I am not hugely fascinated by it.

