If you cut it in two, you just make it harder to put back together

There are several reasons why it is misleading to say the message of Jan Cox is 'about consciousness.'

For one thing you are "saying" it ---- saying what you do not understand, as if you did understand it. But if you understand consciousnesss -- you should alert major neuroscience labs--- for that is the one thing even the natural scientists can be made to see --- they do NOT understand -- what consciousness is.

In these circumstances it can only be considered careless chatter, to throw out that word, as if it explained something.

But that is not the real point----my reservations are not  that you are doing the opposite of the guidelines to which Jan Cox pointed, in the sense the path is a path of real knowledge.

For the above is not the reason the word is objectionable. Nor is it really that the word consciousness is a great example of binary thought-- as if there were the mental and then the material. One or the other. A great example of binary, ordinary, rational, mentation. 

That the work is 'about consciousness'  is not what Jan Cox said. In fact, what Jan said, was that man had no spiritual nature. Jan said , that the world was all material. And what he pointed to, was boundaries, not the still flopped pieces that result from the use of a binary knife of ordinary mentation. When Jan said "There is nothing out there," he did NOT mean, there is something "in here." He in fact spent years, pointing to a third direction. 

There is a reason the word "consciousness" is so popular now. Among New Age pools of talkers. I may get to that sometime soon.