A client asks: “Is the distinction between the energy of consciousness and the energy needed to sustain a living physical body one of integration, where the consciousness of a human is more integrated and the “atoms of consciousness” make bigger and more complex “consciousness structures” capable of independent thought and autonomy, than say a sheep? And a sheep has more of this than a mosquito and a mosquito more of that than an ameba, and an ameba more than an atom, and an atom more than an electron? Whereas the consciousness of a big oak tree, may represent a tremendously large amount of consciousness, that is less tightly integrated then perhaps even that of a single mosquito?”

If the concept of integration helps you to compare and contrast manifestation of consciousness across physical matter, so be it. We see it as a more complex and richer tapestry, but that is our capability and not yours at present. So you can think of consciousness by the consequences of its existence. The human is at a type of pinnacle by virtue of high intelligence and a range of movement, not only via the physical body but via extensions through technology, to fly through the air, to swim beneath the sea, and so forth. By those measures, human reigns supreme. But consciousness has other qualities, and compared to human and the typical human interaction, the comparison with other creatures may yield quite differing interpretations. The life of honeybees is much better coordinated and more satisfying to the individual members, as all have their place, all have an important role, and all have autonomy. It is their choice to serve the whole and to do so willingly and joyously. This, humans do on occasion, but exist as a much more fragmentary collective, to be sure. That is due to corruption by external interlopers disrupting the connections to divine purpose, for example, but nonetheless for all of the accomplishments of human there are many aspects still quite primitive. The hierarchy you have depicted is very egocentric—the demonstration of thought being the yardstick applied. So if there is an outward demonstration of thought, the ranking rate is higher. If outward activities seem more simple, they are given a lowered classification so that the ranking of a mighty tree rates no higher than a mosquito because it is static and seemingly silent. We can tell you that the ranking is in many ways upside down, for the trees have great wisdom and do have profound consciousness and thought. So you are underestimating them, and the other creatures as well, in your ranking. They differ in myriad ways, but to compare them by human standards and values is inappropriate, for they are not designed to do what humans do. They do what they are designed to do quite well, and in most cases in a fashion superior to human endeavor. That is only because of the human corruption, but nonetheless it shows that differing perspectives using differing criteria can render moot such hierarchies, as they are intellectually interesting but not particularly useful in the deeper understanding of life and its purpose. If you look at those things that are in balance and those that are not, the electron and the atom would rank at the top. There are many yardsticks and many criteria that can be applied. The atom will persist long after human is gone from the scene, at least the physical organism. The soul does persist, so aspects of consciousness are the most important criteria, not physical attributes nor even behavior seen outwardly. What is important is the consciousness and the information it commands and how it fits into nature to be in balance to a high degree or to a lesser degree. Does it fit well with other sources of consciousness, or does it have conflicts? Is it in competition and seeking the destruction of other beings, or is it happy on its own and fitting in and having a useful place in the overall scheme? There are many perspectives here. So we would say your hierarchy has little practical utility.