Summary:

The Conscientiogram, based on the consciential paradigm, is a method proposed (Vieira, 1996) to evaluate the manifestation of consciousness with the aim to stimulate the development of self-knowledge and personal evolution. The method is based on a taxonomic approach that classifies attributes of personality manifestation into different sections. The classified attributes are explored through questions that compose the protocol of an evaluation sheet.

The resulting multifaceted evaluation of the consciousness allows identification of a personality’s strongtraits, weaktraits and absentraits and analysis of individual competencies as well as distortions, incoherences, and personal impediments. This subsequently facilitates identification of areas which could most benefit from intraconsciential modification.

References: Vieira, W (1996), Conscientiogram; www.conscius.org.br

Keywords:

consciousness

evaluation

method

conscientogram

taxonomy

attributes

traits

evolution

Primary Topic Area:

[04.11] Consciousness and Evolution

Secondary Topic Area:

[01.11] Personal Identity and the Self

_________________________________________

Introduction

The Conscientiogram (Vieira, Conscienciograma, 1996) is a method proposed to evaluate the integral manifestation of consciousness, that is, the level of evolution of a multidimensional, multiexistential consciousness. The method is based on a taxonomic approach to consciousness evaluation that classifies personality attributes, traits, characteristics and habits into 2000 items, 100 evaluation sheets and 10 sections. The method is the principal instrument of conscientiometric self and hetero-research and intends to be a manual for consciousnesses’ evolutionary self-qualification.

As a practical application of the consciential paradigm, the method seeks to stimulate the development of self-knowledge and personal evolution based on an increasingly precise self-assessment of the individual’s multidimensional reality, the facts of their or intra and extraphysical existence, and the quality of their subjective evaluation of their intraconsciential experiences. As noted by Gesing it “seeks to embrace the complexity of human traits and states, in conjunction with the conscin’s [intraphysical consciousness] presomatic past, in a study of the consciousness, the entire microuniverse of the human person. This is approached through the composition of a logical model which includes objective and subjective, psychic and parapsychic points of view, a structure that makes the theory of consciential evaluation viable and which has as its reference the Evolutionary Scale of Consciousnesses.”  (Gesing, 2016)

The post-modern neoscience conscientiometrology is the one most associated with the Conscientiogram, is can be defined as “the discipline of conscientiology applied to the study of parameterized measurement or evaluation of the pluriexistential, polyhedral, multidimensional, holosomatic consciousness. (Gesing, 2016)

Additional nomenclatures that could be applied to the Conscientiogram include: Consciential holoanalysis, Consciential measurement standards, Consciential profile, Conscientiobiogram, Evolutionary profile of the consciousness, Integral consciousness evaluation technique, Measure of consciential potential, Metric scale of the consciousness, Morphogenic study of the personality, Parameters of consciential evolution, Parapsychodiagnostic, Parapsychogram, Projectioanalysis, Systematic analysis of the consciousness, Units of conscientiometric measure. (Vieira, Conscienciograma, 1996)

A Paradigm for Postmodern and Postmaterialist Consciousness Evaluation

Conscientiometrology and conscientiometry are disciplines of conscientiology, itself a postmodern and postmaterialist neoscience that proposes and uses the consciential paradigm to orient its research. To methodologically research and measure postmaterialist, integral consciousness, where manifestations of consciousness are initiated beyond the physical brain, a new broader scientific paradigm, or model of reality is required. To this end the consciential paradigm is proposed as an alternative, or replacement, to the conventional, Newtonian, Cartesian, mechanistic, reductionist paradigm. The consciential paradigm defines that consciousness and energy (including matter), are separate objects that exist, and it specifies that consciousness is not energy or matter, and that consciousness uses energy and matter to manifest in different dimensions.

To better contextualize the methodology some pillars of the consciential paradigm, and hence an integral evaluation of consciousness, are explained here:

Holosoma

The holosoma is defined as the “set of vehicles of manifestation of a conscin: soma, energosoma, psychosoma, and mentalsoma; and a consciex: psychosoma and mentalsoma.” (Vieira, 700 Experimentos da Conscienciologia, 1994). It is through these vehicles that the consciousness evolves and, importantly from the perspective of measurement, expresses itself. It is worth noting that the consciousness’ paragenetics are present in the more permanent extraphysical bodies, the psychosoma and mentalsoma. The holosoma can be represented by the following image:

Multidimensionality

Multidimensionality is an inherent consciential attribute. That is, as a living physical being our individual essence, consciousness, soul or spirit, is multidimensional in nature. And, through the holosoma, any consciousness has the potential to interact with and even to manifest in other existential dimensions, lucidly or not, and temporarily or in a more lasting manner. Lucid interactions can be through, for example, the use of personal bioenergy, the production of out-of-body experiences, the experience of other parapsychic phenomena, the experience of clairvoyance, or the reception of xenothosenes, units of manifestation emanating from other consciousnesses. The relevance of this to consciential measurement is considerable, and these experiences are capable of providing impressive insights, along with the identification of desired intraconsciential modifications.

Multiexistentiality

Multiexistentiality is the quality of the condition of the consciousness’ self-awareness and continued experience in relation to interlocked sequential lives, through the medium of lucid studies of the holobiography, self-relays, and the personal multiexistential cycle. (Vieira, Homo sapiens reurbanisatus, 2004). Lucid experience and rational, methodological investigation of past lives is the focus of seriexology, retrocognitiology and holobiographology (Consecutivus, 2017) and are important factors in determining the consciousness’ habits, traits and attributes along with likes, dislikes, beliefs, interpretations and so forth. Theory states that it is through the consciousness’ paragenetics that a consciousness receives this multiexistential self-inheritance in each new soma.

Bioenergies and Parapsychism

Conscientiology proposes the theory that a consciousness’ existence in the physical dimension is primarily an energetic existence, that is to say, consciousness is not of the physical dimension, but it manifests in the physical dimension through bioenergies. Hence, the level of sensitivity (psychism), strength, and control a consciousness has in relation to bioenergies is vitally important for its balance and evolutionary growth, and therefore as a factor relevant to any consciential evaluation.

Evolution

The consciential paradigm proposes the theory that each consciousness is involved in, and the result of, an inevitable, unavoidable, and ongoing process of evolution, where they slowly learn and improve the qualification of their intraconsciential condition across countless, sequential, intraphysical lives. Sufficient investigation of the multidimensional and multiexistential nature of consciousness allows for an evolutionary scale of consciousnesses to be proposed. This outlines a natural development of consciential traits and characteristics and as such is able to be used in a methodology of self-evaluation of a consciousness’ evolutionary condition.

Conscientiometrologic Taxonomy

The methodology proposes, as a hypothesis, 2 primary consciential parameters, the holosoma and consciential attributes, as the most logical units of evolutionary measurement. These 2 parameters constitute the first level of the taxonomy, and together with the second (Section names) and third levels (Evaluation Sheet names, traits) form the taxonomy utilized by the methodology. This is represented here:

1. Evaluation of the personality through its holosomatic struc­ture. This structure is composed of the 4 vehicles of consciential manifestation used by a conscin [intraphysical consciousness] in their continuous expression (Vieira, Conscientiogram, 2017). The second and third levels of the taxonomy are:

• Section: Intrasomaticity. Assessing maturity in relation to the soma, or human body (the cellular human body and instincts). The third level of the taxonomy, the title and subject in parenthesis of the evaluation sheets, in this section are:

Intrasomaticity (Conscin and Soma); Heritability (Paragenetics and Genetics); Minority (Child-Conscin); Sexuality (Conscin, Soma, and Sex); Youth (Juvenile-Conscin); Psychomotricity (Neurons and Muscle Mass); Scholarity (Personal Curriculum); Compaternity (Conscin and Family); Conviviality (Cosmoethical Links); Longevity (Old Age).

• Section: Bioenergetics. Assessing maturity in relation to the energosoma (the energy body). The evaluation sheet titles are:

Sensitivity (Consciential Energies); Sexochakrality (Conscin and Sexochakra); Vitality (Abdominal Sub-brain); Applicability (Utilization of Bioenergies); Frontochakrality (Conscin and the Third Eye); Sanity (Homeostasis of the Conscin); Self-defensiveness (Maturity of Prophylaxes); Acquisitiveness (Self-attachment and Self-detachment); Detoxicity (Energetic Self-compensations); Energosomaticity (Conscin and Energetic Body).

• Section: Antiemotionality. Assessing maturity in relation to the psychosoma (the body of emotions). The evaluation sheet titles are:

Anteriority (Presomatic Consciousness); Potentiality (Courage of the Consciousness); Serenity (Consciousness and Serenism); Cardiochakrality (Dominant Emotionality); Utility (Conscin and Free Time);  Profundity (Self-education and Superstitions); Influenceability (Satellite-Conscin); Paraperceptibility (Animism-Parapsychism); Transcendentality (Conscin and Mysticism); Egokarmality (Conscin and Egotism).

• Section: Rationality. Assessing maturity in relation to the mentalsoma (the body of discernment). The evaluation sheet titles are:

Invulgarity (Consciousness and Talents); Rationality (Conscin and Mentalsoma); Intellectuality (Conscin and Intelligence); Personality (Personal character); Animicity (Conscin and Animism); Megachakrality (Consciential Door); Imperturbability (Conscin and Self-control); Sentimentality (Controlled Emotionality); Maxiconsensuality (Vanguard Knowledge); Cosmoconscientiality (Conscin and Samadhi).

2. Evaluation of the personality’s intrapsychic struc­ture through 6 broad, representative, evolutionary priority attributes. The degree to which these attributes are qualified and expressed within the consciential microuniverse is determined based on facts and behavior experienced by the consciousness in this current life, thus determining the level of maturity expressed by the ego in the use of their consciential attributes. The second and third levels of the taxonomy are:

• Section: Leadership. Assessing maturity in relation to one’s social life (sociability). The evaluation sheet titles are:

Authority (Power of Conduction); Mentality (Self-evolutionary Politicology); Repercutability (Multidimensional Leadership); Retractibility (Public Self-judgments); Anti-offensiveness (Utilization of Forgiveness); Antidispersiveness (Maturity of Performances); Productivity (Consciential Megagestations); Continuity (Mobilization of Consciousnesses); Contemporaneity (Conscin and its Epoch); Humanity (Conscin and Mesology).

• Section: Communicability. Assessing maturity in relation to didac­tic culture. The evaluation sheet titles are:

Sociability (Contacts of the Consciousness); Maxicommunicability (Conscin and Language); Reality (Conscin and Symbols); Syntacticity (Exposition of Ideas); Fertility (Consciousness and Ideas); Reverifiability (Conscin and Omniquestioning); Aestheticity (Conscin and Art); Parapsychism (Multidimensional Interchange); Exotericity (Conscin and Openness); Opinionicity (Opinion for the Public).

• Section: Prioritization. Assessing maturity in relation to free will. The evaluation sheets are:

Liberty (Conscin and Freewill); Maxipriority (Maturity of Freewill); Industriousness (Personal Works); Economicity (Conscin and Dollar Signs); Professionality (Livelihood); Activity (Maturity of Tasks); Scientificity (Consciousness and Science); Versatility (Intellectual Universalism); Totality (Completeness in Life); Cosmoethicity (Conscin and Cosmoethics).

• Section: Coherence. Assessing maturity in relation to initial morals. The evaluation sheet titles are:

Connectivity (Conscin and Coherence); Derepressivity (Deconditioning); Responsibility (Conscin and Ambiguities); Logicity (Conscin and Hyperacuity); Criticalness (Conscin and Criticism); Objectivity (Theory and Experience); Veracity (Words and Actions); Competitiveness (Conscin and Competition); Assistantiality (Sense of Generosity); Equanimity (Awareness of Justice).

• Section: Conscientiality. Assessing maturity in relation to evolutionary time. The evaluation sheet titles are:

Conscientiality (Consciousness and Immortality); Identity (Conscin and Inheritances); Antimateriality (Conscin and Materialism); Seriality (Successive Lives); Multidimensionality (Multidimensional Life); Immediacy (Material Powers); Groupkarmality (Conscin and Clan); Pacificity (Conscin and Antibellicism); Interconscientiality (Consciential Families); Polykarmality (Universalized Karma).

• Section: Universality. Assessing maturity in relation to cosmo­ethics. The evaluation sheet titles are:

Maxifraternity (Deliberate Altruism); Statelessness (Consciousness and Citizenship); Maxiuniversality (Conscin and Antisectarianism); Authenticity (Conscin and Demagogies); Omnicooperativity (Vanguard Collaboration); Phytoconvivality (Conscin and Flora); Zooconvivality (Conscin and Fauna); Inseparability (Conscin and Interdependences); Holosomaticity (Conscin and Instruments); Holokarmality (Integral Karma).

In explaining the selection of the two top-level taxonomic items or primary parameters Vieira posits, firstly in relation to the holosoma, that “… a fundamental parameter of the consciousness’ evolution – the greatest range of parapsychism conceivable until now – can logically be the level of excellence of the mastery shown by the personality over its own vehicles of manifestation. How a conscin simultaneously utilizes all 4 bodies in a homogeneous manner, with balance, while in intraphysicality, without leaving any trace of primary incompetence or evolutionary impediment”. (Vieira, Conscientiogram, 2017)

Secondly, in relation to consciential attributes Vieira hypothesizes “The greatest evolution a conscin compulsorily expresses is not only through the organic maturity of the cellular body or the cerebral hemispheres; nor is it solely through human or psychological mental maturity; but it is, most of all, through the intrinsic maturity of the parapsychic, causal ego. That is why the other fundamental parameter of consciential evolution – the most intraparapsychic of all – is, incontestably, the degree of excellence of the integral multiexistential maturity attained by the ego, or intelligent principal, through their attributes, such as: rationality, imagination, attention, memory, elaboration of thoughts, comprehension, critical judgement, and association of ideas, among others.” (Vieira, Conscientiogram, 2017)

Evaluation Sheet Structure

The science of conscientiometrology explores the integral personality using this taxonomy of attributes, traits, behaviors, and habits, and the 2000 items that compose the current protocol of the 100 evaluation sheets.

Each evaluation sheet presents the same structure, namely a header, 20 items arranged in an order of increasing complexity, and then a summary area.

The header demarcates the context for analyzing and responding to the evaluation sheets’ 20 items and contains these components: the Title, CONVIVIALITY; the Subject, in parentheses, Cosmoethical Links; and the Section being researched, INTRASOMATICITY. For example,

INTRASOMATICITY

CONVIVIALITY (Cosmoethical Links)                                                        ES#  9

In addition to the 20 items becoming increasingly complex, they are arranged so the “first 10 items pertain to more nosographic, negative, basic, and rustic traits, abilities or attributes, and the second 10 to more homeostatic, healthy, positive, evolved, and refined traits, abilities or attributes.” (Vieira, Conscientiogram, 2017)

Self-evaluation

In seeking to self-evaluate the complex personal reality of a consciousness, it is worth noting Machado’s observation that “consciential equality does not exist” (Machado, Antivitimizacao, 2016), and Vieira’s proposition that “A polyhedric consciousness is the theory of the metaphoric interpretation of the consciential principle’s complexity, like a polyhedron with thousands of interconnected facets forming an entire and internally coherent consciential microuniverse” (Vieira, Enciclopédia da Conscienciologia, 2012).

As an initial attempt to mathematize polyhedric consciousness, the results of a self-evaluation using the Conscientiogram can be observed in two principle forms:

1. Mathematical, with clearly demarcated marks, rankings, and classification of the individual’s strong, weak or absent traits.
2. The individual’s intimate experience, processes, distortions, any hetero-feedback, and subsequent adjustments.

Obviously, self-evaluation or self-research is the state where the individual is simultaneously both the researcher and the object being researched. It should also be noted that the first form exists to facilitate the second, because, when prioritizing assistance to a consciousness, the primary value of a methodology for conscientiometric self-evaluation is determined based on the quality, quantity, and depth of enduring evolutionary impetus and assistance it provides the self-evaluating consciousness. It should also be noted that any objective evaluation, even when seeking to be as neutral as possible, is based on subjective appraisals.

The apparent intent to present a method that allows a consciousness to dynamically and naturally self-correct, is one reason why the Conscientiogram presents various challenges. The method’s structure, compact-phrasings and use of an evolutionary scale of consciousnesses are designed to reduce the amount of self-corruption present, and to stimulate numerous positive repercussions and growth crises within a self-researcher. The principal, but not insurmountable, challenges presented by this method include:

1. Forming a reasonable interpretation of an item’s compact-phrasings, given the research context, that is, the evaluation sheet’s header.
2. Experiencing and understanding the inherent multidimensional nature of consciousness.
3. Recollecting personal facta as they relate to the scope defined by the item’s precise words.
4. Determining the most realistic self-evaluation, and coherent, homeostatic self-positioning for a given item.
5. Defining a mark for the item using the evolutionary scale of consciousnesses as a reference.
6. Dealing with the intraconsciential and extraconsciential consequences of the prior challenges, including the individual understanding of personal strongtraits, weaktraits and absentraits.

Once the self-researcher understands something of the consciential paradigm and evolutionary scale of consciousnesses the common initial lack of reference points and clarity passes, although the challenge of self-evaluation persists for most items. On self-evaluation Vieira observes “people, in general, present a certain difficulty to identify and accept the traits of their own temperament…” (Vieira, Dicionario de Augmentos da Conscienciologia, 2014). This difficulty generates distortions, which frequently are obvious to other consciousness researchers, but to which a self-researcher is blind. This self-blindness is illustrated relatively well by the theory of the Johari Window. (Wikipedia, 2017)

To this point, each of the method’s 2000 items present an opportunity for the self-evaluator to perform a self-diagnosis, ideally a prophylactic self-diagnosis. In accordance with Machado’s observation that “prophylactic diagnostics exist” (Machado, Proatividade Evolutiva, 2014), it seems logical to propose that an accurate self-diagnosis, a more precise understanding of ones intraconsciential reality, is a necessary step in an individual affecting a more efficient self-cure.

Self-evaluation Outcomes

At the most basic level a self-evaluation results in 2000 marks, 100 evaluation sheet average marks, 10 section average marks, and one average mark for the entire self-evaluation. Analyzing these leads to the self-definition of strongtraits – as indicated by those items, evaluation sheets and sections with higher marks; weaktraits – those with lower marks; and absentraits – those where the self-researcher simply does not have or cannot recognize that trait or strongtrait under analysis.

Based on this the self-evaluator identifies attributes and traits that are more developed in their consciential microuniverse, their evolutionary conquests, or traits that they have attained until this point in their evolution. They also identify attributes and traits which act as a burden within their manifestation, impeding the consciousness’ healthy evolutionary manifestation, and hence need to be understood better and slowly developed into strongtraits, or when entirely absent developed from nil.

To achieve a prophylactic self-diagnosis and eventual self-cure, a conscientiometric self-evaluation needs to be based on personal facts and actual experiences, with the maximum possible amount of unbalanced emotions and prejudicial personal interpretations, often tied to generalizations or desired idealizations or self-consolations, excluded from the recollections and self-positioning.

It is worth emphasizing that the best self-evaluation is the most accurate, realistic and coherent one, it is not necessarily one that gives the self-evaluator a high mark. This is because in any given self-evaluation a high mark alone, may or may not indicate a positive intraconsciential condition, as any mark is only valid if the self-evaluation is coherent, rational, logical and based on personal facts and more lucid and realistic interpretations of life experiences.

If the attribution of a high mark (such as 0.5 and above using the Decimal marking method) is based on faulty logic and an imprecise, tendentious self-positioning, the outcome, although representative of the consciousness’ overall condition, which includes the consciousness’ self-distortions, self-corruptions, blind spots, or self-deceits, the mark does not accurately reflect their actual evolutionary condition and hence is not valid when considered in relation to the objective, external, evolutionary scale of consciousnesses.

In observing processes of intraconsciential recycling (recin), this researcher notes that any self-evaluation, even an exceedingly distorted self-evaluation, assists the consciousness. This is due to the process of self-saturation, among others, when the consciousness, sooner or later, becomes sufficiently motivated and organized to perform self-confrontation. It is observed that regardless of whether the consciousness’ self-evaluation is accurate or not, a firm intimate decision and openness to change, evolve and grow will lead the conscin to generate positive growth crises and slowly perform consciential self-reeducation, existential recyclings (recexis) and recins necessary to achieve enduring self-cures and measurable consciential growth.

Observation also shows that the self-evaluation for an item can substantially change based on the recollecting of an additional life fact or the interpreting of a fact or experience in another way, and this may or may not change the mark given for the item. In the same way, hearing a different interpretation of a Conscientiogram item or taking more time to reflect on an item, can help an individual to intimately change or recycle negative, rigid beliefs or attitudes held about a given experience and subsequently generate notable changes in the consciousness’ thosenic, parasynaptic, and synaptic structure.

In an integral self-evaluation every reaction is a relevant intraconsciential fact to be considered, and can lead to a consciousness performing a kind of intraconsciential reeducation or recycling, which can be existential or intraconsciential in nature. As a simple example, the typical need to utilize dictionaries or the provided glossary indicates a level of intraconsciential change is occurring, the person’s cerebral dictionary is expanding, and the associated synapses and parasynapses are being created. Elaborating on this example, if the self-evaluator complains about new technical terms, this would show a level of neophobia among numerous other possible traits, and as mentioned should be considered in a self-evaluation, upon being elicited by the appropriate item(s), such as various that appear in evaluation sheet #54 Syntacticity (Exposition of Ideas) or in item 425, among others.

Over time, in addition to expanding one’s self-knowledge of strong, weak and absent traits, the Conscientiogram based methodology increasingly stimulates personal self-definition, self-positioning, and self-reperspectivization. This assists the consciousness to simultaneously attain a more homeostatic and realistic understanding of themselves and their multidimensional and multiexistential evolutionary condition. Often this self-evaluation generates consequences that involve a form of self-reconciliation and an associated decrease in the level of internal conflict, or application of ego defense mechanisms. Elaborating on the proposition elucidated by Gesing that “Through conscientiometrology the person begins to diminish conflicts…” (Gesing, 2016), observation shows, and logic seems to confirm, that a decrease in internal conflict typically leads to a decrease in the level of heteroconflict, or conflict generated among others, therefore leading to a more harmonious life.

Given human nature, diminishing unbalanced emotions and prejudicial personal interpretations from memories elicited when reflecting on the method’s items, which, to a point, is a kind of reliving the experience(s), is a substantial challenge. But, as a person changes, naturally reconfiguring synaptic and parasynaptic pathways, altering automated reactions and interpretations, and diminishing self-corruptions, they liberate themselves from unhealthy cycles and affect a kind of multidimensional consciential derepression or debrainwashing. Due to the individual’s increasing level of awareness of their personal reality it has been observed that self-research, when sufficiently profound, manifests as a type of self-cure.

Part of this self-cure comes from identification of the degree of influence each of 3 primary factors have over our consciential manifestation in intraphysical life, these factors are: mesology (culture, environment), genetics, and paragenetics.

The degree to which each factor influences a given consciousness varies greatly and the methodolgy allows a consciousness to start to identify and discern the roots of different behaviors, habits and tendencies, and classify experiences as healthy or pathological from an evolutionary point of view. By elaborating this self-analysis the self-evaluator can determine the degree to which they are still controlled or defined by the mesology and their genetics, in contrast to the level of influence their paragenetics have in their manifestation.

Continuing to explore the concept of self-cure, the methodology’s emphasis on multidimensionality brings important consequences, for example as noted by Machado “Intraphysically it is possible to try to hide parapathologies. But a parasemiological approach removes any mask, making consciousnesses transparent to themselves and others” (Machado, Proatividade Evolutiva, 2014), Machado goes on to say “a mask is an artifice used by those who are multidimensionally ignorant”. (Machado, Proatividade Evolutiva, 2014)

What this refers to is the theory of the transparency of multidimensionality, an often overlooked facet of humanity’s reality. This theory states that consciousnesses in different dimensions can relatively easily perceive the thosenes, or the units of consciential manifestation that are a conjunction of thoughts, sentiments and energy, emitted by another. The difficulty is that intraphysical consciousnesses, in the densest of dimensions, the physical, are typically unaware of this process and are less able to cleanly demarcate and identify influences and thosenes from consciexes, extraphysical consciousness, or projected consciousnesses in more subtle dimensions.

The relevance of multidimensionality in consciential measurement is profound. To illustrate, consider this question: how can any consciousness clearly understand who they are if they are unable to distinguish native thosenes, those that originate from themselves, from xenothosenes, or those thosenes that originate from another consciousness?

The consciential paradigm proposes that every conscin is immersed in an ocean of energies. This theory can be explored by the experience of various phenomena such as telepathy, individual work with bioenergeies, and out-of-body experiences. Lucid experience of these show that our thoughts do not cease to exist beyond the brain. One of the relevant hypotheses here is that energy is the medium of thosenic communication. Hence the importance of conscins being able to identify their level of lucidity, energetic sensitivity, parapsychicism, and integration of multidimensionality in their life, in addition to their ability to discern their own thosenes from heterothosenes.

Based on personal experience in consciential laboratories and classrooms, the seemingly interminable process of self-diagnosis and self-cure can be advanced by later reapplying the methodology, whether one evaluation sheet or the entire Conscientiogram. If done with a personal predisposition to seek alternative, multidimensional, broader, more coherent and healthier interpretations (less distortions), positive results are generated. This evidences the concept of relativeness of a self-evaluation, and the consciousness’, apparently inherent, mechanism of self-correction. In reapplying the methodology, the personal traits of reverifiability and relativeness in self-research are considered essential as with each subsequent, self-motivated, voluntary self-evaluation more cons, hypothetical units of lucidity, are recuperated by the consciousness and the self-researcher’s overview of themselves should be broader and more homeostatic.

After direct, lucid, personal experimentation, individuals can, without machines or external dependencies, substantially increase their level of awareness and application of their consciential attributes, generating a measurable increase in the level of consciential health, or holosomatic homeostasis. As noted by Gesing the Conscientiogram allows a self-researcher “… to verify the manifest evolutionary potential or missing, priority, personal conquests… “ (Gesing, 2016).

Summary

This paper presented a methodology for a post-materialist, post-modern evaluation of consciousness. This was done through the presentation of an adequate scientific paradigm and explanation of the Conscientiogram, its approach, taxonomy, intent and the typical challenges encountered by self-evaluators.

In addition, various hypothesis and experiences were presented to illustrate the positive intraconsciential modifications that result from the methodology due to various self-corrections, self-reperspectivizations and the possibility to eventually generate forms of enduring self-cure.

References

Consecutivus. (21 de February de 2017). About Consecutivus. Fonte: Consecutivus Web site: http://www.consecutivus.com.br/en/about-consecutivus

Gesing, A. (2016). Waldo Vieira, a Conscienciometria, o Conscienciograma e a Conscius. Glasnost, 164.

Machado, C. (2014). Proatividade Evolutiva. Foz do Iguacu: Editares.

Machado, C. (2016). Antivitimizacao. Foz do Iguacu: Editares.

Vieira, W. (1994). 700 Experimentos da Conscienciologia. Rio do Janeiro: IIP.

Vieira, W. (1996). Conscienciograma. Rio de Janeiro: IIP.

Vieira, W. (2004). Homo sapiens reurbanisatus. Foz do Iguacu: CEAEC.

Vieira, W. (2012). Enciclopédia da Conscienciologia. Foz do Iguacu: Editares.

Vieira, W. (2014). Dicionario de Augmentos da Conscienciologia. Foz do Iguacu: Editares.

Vieira, W. (2017). Conscientiogram. (J. Lloyd, & J. P. Costa, Trads.) Foz do Iguacu: Editares.

Wikipedia. (10 de April de 2017). Johari Window. Fonte: Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window

Jeffrey Lloyd, Conscius, Cognopolis, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil

Article also available on www.academia.edu

Download (PDF, 2.43MB)

The following is the audio file that accompanies the above presentation.