Peter Russell got me thinking

We know we are consious. Perhaps the only thing we really know for sure. We know too that our brain creates useable map to negotiate reality. It is a fact our perceptions are not real but constructs created by our brain. We are restricted to a limited range of colours and these colours we see are not true reality but a tool the brain uses to enable us to get about. This is accepted science.
In trying to see what we can not we design models, use metaphors. Particles when subjected to closer scrutiny turn out to not be particles at all. We try waves as an alternative metaphor yet this is not true either. Finally we agree there are but some kind of potentialities. By observing we bring about materiality yet know this is not accurate either. The further we look the less substance becomes truth.
It is only by being consious of something that it becomes existent.
My years spent in the speculation of how consiousness, something of no material substance, could arise from matter, how meat can think and feel revealed no one has a clue. A mind is none existent in space yet it appears to be able to move matter. There is no physics known that suggests how something not existent in space can move physical objects.
Peter Russell suggests we have it arse about tit. That consiousness does not emerge from matter. He suggests the opposite may be true. That time, space, matter, all our givens evaporate on close inspection. Consiousness is the only given. This being so, consiousness must create matter. The knowing, the awareness, the being, are all we can really call true. We are the universe become consious considering itself. Perhaps the universe is consiousness exploring what it is. We aspects of this. Is the universe pure consiousness?
This would be a paradigm shift. Much of what we assume has to be abandoned when a paradigm shift occurs. Caterers are built on old assumptions. To abandon these ammounts to admission ones Lifes work was wrong consequently they take time to become accepted. Often the deaths of the previous generation. Men faced execution for denying the earth was not the central point of the universe.
The twentieth century psychologists studied cognition, avoiding emotion as an awkward slippery problem. Yet emotion is what saves us when the tiger attacks, we can't reason our way of escape, it's too sklow. We don't rationaluse who we fancy, with who we would like to breathe. All major life decisions are emotionally driven.
Consiousness is where our brighter minds are now focused. Not particles or waves, unless they play a part. Without consiousness we can know nothing. It is primary. We must begin again, from here, from our sole definite.
This realisation, should I stick with it, runs against all I wrote before. My atheism, or my materialist outlook no longer makes sense. Whether God is the growing, consious universe, of which we are all parts, if we are one, if in becoming self aware the universe began, it need not disprove or contradict science. Those who have studied consiousness from within, yogis, shamen, Buddhists, then these are to who we should look for advice. Frequently light comes up. Enlightenment. Seeing the light. Light travels at its speed but if we were travelling with it time would dusappear, space would be irrelevant, were would be still. No one knows what light is. Photons, particles of light? No, sounds wrong to me. Light, love, awareness.