Can Consciousness Levels be Measured?

 Marcus T Anthony's new web site and blog can be found at www.mind-futures.com.

The evolution of consciousness is central to the overall purpose of humanity here on this planet. Ironically, it is in part, the fixation with measurement in modern science which has seen this understanding vanish from the annals of modern scientific literature. There has not been a verifiable means to measure consciousness levels, so science has tended to ignore the idea. The advancement of consciousness in any given lifetime is also heavily dependent upon exploring inner worlds, and especially the waves of thought that emerge from the substrate of consciousnesses within the mind. Since meditation and reflection have largely been extracted from modern education and science, very few people working there understand consciousness very well at all.

To even begin to measure consciousness evolution, we first have to perceive that such a thing exists, then define it. Consciousness evolution refers to the process of never-ending unfoldingfrom ignorance to cosmic bliss - or enlightenment. This progresses through various stages - which have been mapped by sages throughout history. In a sense it is the journey from darkness to light, illusion to truth, fixation with form to the recognition of the essential role of self in structuring and emotionalising reality.

There are ways, however, to measure the consciousness levels of people, books, movies, newspapers, curricula, institutions, entire populations and so on.

One method which has recently surfaced is outlined by David E. Hawkins in his books such as Power Vs Force, and the Discovery of the Presence of God.
Hawkins has developed a logarithmic scale, which depicts, from zero to 1000, levels of consciousness development. At the lower end of the scale are base emotional and survival instincts like shame, guilt, anger; in the middle we have rationality, followed by the higher stages of love, bliss and enlightenment. Hawkins measures these levels by testing whether muscles go weak or strong after a statement is made - otherwise known as exercise kinesiology.

There are some problems with what Hawkins writes, most notably that muscle kinesiology has repeatedly failed as a measure of truth and falsity under empirical testing. Nonetheless, Hawkins' essential claim is correct. Consciousness does evolve through the stages he lists, at least in an approximate sense. David E. Hawkins is one of the most profound mapmakers of consciousness today. His books should not be missed by anyone seriously contemplating doing a spiritual journey.

I first came across Hawkins' work when on holiday in Sedona, Arizona in 2001. In a small fair I found Power vs Force, and was amazed to read about his consciousness calibration methods, for I had been taught a particular consciousness calibration method myself, and was convinced that consciousness could be measured, at least in an approximate way (even more interestingly, I found out Hawkins lived in Sedona. I took a walk up to where he lived, but didn't drop in to say "Hi").

In Sage of Synchronicity I describe a consciousness calibration method, which I call the "Quick Check". I won't detail it here, but it permits an immediate approximation of consciousness levels. The scale I work with is linear, zero to 100%. A reading of zero means the thing is unconscious, or completely "dark". A measurement of 100% means that it has achieved the highest level possible for a human being on this planet at this time. We might call this complete "enlightenment".

Perceiving the consciousness level of people, ideas, books and spiritual teachers has a great advantage. You can instantly know how valid the thing you are examining is. If your own consciousness level is, say 5%, then a  work which callibates at 10% will almost certainly have some merit for you (though, it also may not).

Needless to say, measuring consciousness can press people's buttons. If I told you that your consciousness level was 3%, but you partner was at 5%, how would you feel? If I told a religious fundamentalist that his faith calibrates at X%, but another spiritual path lies at X + 10%, how do you think they would react? Ego does not like being told. Period.

The problem is exacerbated by postmodern thought, which insists that all voices are equal, or at least deserve equal opportunity to be expressed (fair enough). Yet the truth remains that levels of consciousness differ markedly from philosophy to philosophy, and teacher to teacher. They are not all the same. If a person honestly seeks enlightenment, but chooses a path with a low consciousness level, s/he is doomed to failure from the start (but this does not mean that in itself the path is without spiritual worth).

No work will measure 100%, because there is always a degree of self-deception in any creative act, and ego "contaminates" the work." Therefore, you can reflect upon the shadow - what lies in the gap between the level reading of X%, and 100%. If you can intuit what lies in this gap (and this can be tapped into, like all consciousness forms) you can then avoid certain pitfalls which may be unconsciously contained in the work.

Let me just conclude by offering a few readings of some well known spiritual books and teachings. I am not suggesting you take my readings as being beyond question. Take them as an opportunity for reflection.

* Note: Please take into consideration that the average consciousness level of humanity is around 3% at this time in our collective evolution.

David E. Hawkins, Discovery of the Presence of God. 80%

James Redfield, The Celestine Prophecy. 8%

The Secret (video, original with Esther Hicks). about 16%.
Stuart Wilde's Infinite Self. 70% (his later works have dropped off).
Mutant Message Downunder. 25% (despite the deception - it's fiction, not anecdotal).
Jack Canfield's Chicken Soup for the Soul (original). 65%
Timothy Ferris' 4 Hour Work Week. 4% (reviewed by Simon Buckland in an earlier post on 22c+)

Marcus