I may not understand.
I believe what he is saying is that our means of perceiving and interpreting the world around us and ourselves is primary. If we did not have it for us the world would not exist.
Therefore, consciousness is the "sine qua non" of the Universe.
And he does that without ever defining "consciousness", an omission which I think should not have been made.
I enjoy the idea that "consciousness" deserves more attention, especially as it relates to our relationship with the world around us. From what I heard, however, I didn't get a better understanding of that.
Tell me what I missed. It's an interesting notion.