How many agree with that statement that is comprised of the user title of this thread?
I would say that the logos makes consciousness possible (logos literally means “word”).
Context?
"The problem of consciousness (more precisely, of becoming conscious of something) confronts us only when we begin to comprehend how we could dispense with it; and now physiology and the history of animals place us at the beginning of such comprehension (it took them two centuries to catch up with Leibniz’s suspicion which soared ahead). For we could think, feel, will, and remember, and we could also “act” in every sense of the word, and yet none of all this would have to “enter our consciousness” (as one says metaphorically). The whole of life would be possible without, as it were, seeing itself in a mirror. Even now, for that matter, by far the greatest portion of our life takes place without this mirror effect; and this is true even of our thinking, feeling, and willing life, however offensive this may sound to older philosophers. For what purpose, then, and why consciousness at all when it is in the main superfluous?… it seems to me as if the subtlety and strength of consciousness always were proportionate to a man’s (or animal’s) capacity for communication, and as if this capacity in turn were proportionate to the need for communication. But this last point is not to be understood as if the individual human being happens to be a master in communicating and making understandable his needs must also be most dependent on others in his needs. But it does seem to me as if it were that way when we consider whole races and chains of generations: Where need and distress have forced men for a long time to communicate and to understand each other quickly and subtly, the ultimate result is an excess of this strength and art of communication - as it were, a capacity that has gradually been accumulated and now waits for an heir who might squander it… Supposing that this observation is correct, I may now proceed to surmise that consciousness has developed only under the pressure of the need for communication; that from the start it was needed and useful only between human beings (particularly between those who commanded and those who obeyed); and that it also developed only in proportion to the degree of this utility."
- Nietzsche, The Gay Science Book V
Consciousness is a construction of language, which is in turn the product of the hierarchy.
Good quote Dionysus. 
This is not a typical chicken/egg problem.
Either:
- you have to have language before you are able to think.
OR - you have to be able to think before you can invent a language.
#1 doesn’t make much sense because languages are man-made. You can’t make anything (especially something as structured and organized as a language) if you aren’t able to think about it.
How can an unintelligent, inanimate thing create something. Thats like saying a wooden table creates carpenters. Or a play creates actors. Or art creates the artist.
You could say, however, that art is a medium by which the artist can improve him/herself.
Define consciousness first.
Also, it would be hard to argue that some poor sap born with no senses, is not conscious.
Sapience is my definition of higher consciousness.
Perhaps I should of said higher consciousness as certainly all creatures retain some form of conscious projection of the self.
I disagree, consciousness comes before language. Language is a tool of abstract representation, other such tools or modes of thought are possible. Perhaps language is not even the highest or most desirable or intelligent form of thought. It is possible to imagine alien beings that think purely in terms of pictures, for example, and somehow do so in a more complex and functional way than our speech, no?
It is not language but communication. Communication is instinctual. Language itself, as we know it, is simply one highly advanced form of it, refined by consciousness.
And a wooden table does create carpenters - carpenters would not be carpentering if not for the idea to create the table. Actors would not act if the role they are to fill did not exist.
I don’t.
You can think of images without words and you can communicate without words using gestures.
It is the recourse of the deaf: does someone who has never heard a word think in words?
If they don’t, then clearly consciousness isn’t reliant on language but merely uses it as a cruch when available. If a deaf person does use language (albeit however unique to them) to think then maybe there is a symbiotic relationship between consciousness and language.
That is not really the question. Even the thrice-striken communicate without recourse to the spoken word.
What I mean by logos is the conception of a “thing” (an “object”, a “unit”, a “particle”, etc.). Without this, there could be no consciousness, as consciousness is always a being-conscious of something. And this idea of an “object” presupposes the idea of a “subject”, i.e., of “some one”, which in turn presupposes a relatively separate and coherent complex within the flux. The simplification of this relative separateness and coherence to an absolute separateness and coherence constitutes the logos. Thus the logos was “in the beginning”: in the beginning of consciousness (i.e., of the world as we know it).
Consciousness always requires an object external to itself. Just as a bridge cannot hang suspended over a void but must instead be anchored in place on both sides, so too does thought require a stable referent in the ‘outside’ world. This object most often takes the form of the hierarchy (this is natural: man must fulfill his needs; he does this by way of his society, and it is inevitable his thoughts should turn toward it); the means by which the thought makes itself known is communication.
What degree of consciousness?
Are ants conscious? Ant Eaters? Dogs? People?
In general terms, I don’t think language is required.
But as we see higher and higher levels of consciousness,
we see higher and higher levels of language.
It requires the belief in an object external to itself - as well as a belief in a “self” - a subject.
Something is always the object of consciousness. But why is “belief” in this object required, and why is belief in a self required? What do you mean by “belief”?
I think single-celled organisms can be considered to have “consciousness” (I did so in writing the above posts). Binary language is also a language. The single-celled organism assimilates: whatever it can assimilate (make similar) is a “1”, whatever it cannot is a “0” to it (it is unconscious of it).
It is not self aware. I think that is a prerequisite for what we think of in terms of consciousness. In terms of its “thought process,” if it can be called that, it is closer to a robot or a machine than to a human IMO.