I decided to write this article in 2007, surprised by the conjectures that were appearing in the scientific field to explain the acquisition of consciousness, as its quantum origin and/or their supposed biological bases. As is also the case with other psychic faculties, "Consciousness" (strictly "Consciousness-raising", as we shall see) it is also undefined, without being clearly differentiated or correctly related to the other faculties. Unlike in the material natural sciences, where concepts are clearly defined (molecule, mammal, ...), in psychology the first problem is definitional ambiguity. From this point on, the rigorousness of the whole of psychology is seriously limited. It is surprising when the explanation starts from something as well known and homonymous as "Bodily consciousness", but -unfortunately- the virtual psyche is a domain traditionally annoying to material science. This is the problem. The physicist Heinrich Rudolf HERTZ wisely said ‘When in science conceptual contradictions are eliminated, our mind, free from bewilderment, will cease to formulate spurious/false questions’. Knowing how to speak is prior to trying to reason. ‘Nor do we [scientists] know what consciousness is. We say that we are conscious beings but we cannot determine exactly what that is’ (S. ZEKI). Despite the omnipresence of consciousness - as manifested by any persona - it is, therefore, one of the most elusive phenomenon for science. Consciousness-raising is, very briefly, ‘a auto-applying complexification (or complexation) of feelings, initiated based in psychomotor skills’, which, among many other applications, supports the subsequent structural levels of thought (and also including the mathematic). The reader will be able to read the first paper that explains it in detail. But first it will be necessary to begin by addressing the above misunderstandings. The article also explains: 1) the faculties that enable the development of mathematics - for many, another of the most important questions to be resolved in the scientific field-, and 2) the functioning of foot reflexology, another phenomenon that is already accepted, but has not been explained until now. With this faculty is understood, it will be easier to read "The kerygma of Thought" (on their structure), from 2007, along with the most recents articles of the Representation of Knowledge. After 18 years, I do not consider it necessary to modify the original text, only to add the necessary additions relating to other subsequent articles of mine.