So we know that DNA is responsible for the expression of our individual experience, we just do not know precisely how. Since we know that we interact with the subatomic world through observation/measurement, it would appear that there is entanglement. If our DNA is involved in the creation of our physical experience then it is clear that quantum entanglement must also be involved since we know that entanglement exists on all levels.

So we must conclude that our DNA is involved in entanglement and that we just do not know how. We know that our DNA creates physical results within our bodies.  We know that the DNA outside the body is affected when the DNA of the body is affected. Experiments have shown this. This can only occur if the DNA is entangled and entanglement contributes to how it works. This is so, even if we do not know the mechanism. It is also this way, even if our present theories are inadequate in explanation. We have to remember that theories are theories, even if they seem to be true, and are not fact or truth. It is impossible to make a theory a fact, though it is easy enough to assume a fact from a theory.

If our DNA has quantum attributes, then it is not limited in time or space. So the DNA we share with our ancestors or descendants is able to affect them, as it acts outside time or space, as this is what quantum behavior means. This is so, even if we have no theories to support how this is possible. Inability to explain does not reduce the factual nature of this. It is simply so as observed, and our task is to find a way to explain this with the creation of new theories and along with them ways of testing. This is concluded entirely without making assumptions, but through simple logical application of already revealed knowledge.

If our DNA has this quantum attribute and is entangled, it has to be entangled with all the subatomic particles that make up our universe. This means individually we are affected by whatever is happening in the universe from the formation of a supernova to the birth of a new galaxy. It also means that we also affect the supernova and the birth of a galaxy though the magnitude of our effect may be different. In fact, in one way, if we postulate the many universe explanation of quantum mechanics, then our thoughts and feelings which interact, in a quantum manner from our consciousness, in turn affecting our DNA may produce an expression of a manifested universe different from that of our next door neighbor. This would be so despite the fact we may agree on all that we give the same labels, though our experience and perception of it, and therefore our reality may be different. The most emancipating benefit of this is that you have an ability to change your reality, even as you change your perception.

This enables your DNA quantum machine to deliver a different reality to you as you change your perception. In limited ways we do this with awareness when we envision a goal, move in that direction and find that our goal is usually met.

To do so efficiently we simply need to have a more complete connection with our quantum DNA attribute.

As you observe, is this a quantum event? Quantum theory would dictate that as you make smaller and smaller measurements you get to a point where your act of measurement begins to change what you are measuring. Your observation in the act of measurement has now demonstrated entanglement. So at the larger level it appears that what we do is independent, but as we get into the area where objects of observation are becoming smaller and smaller it seems there ceases to be demonstrable separation. At the moment when the measurement or observation begins to change the observed, we have to ask the following question. What is entangled, that changes even as the measurement/observation changes?

Since the act of observation is an act of consciousness, where active awareness is taking place, then it would have to be consciousness itself. So consciousness would then have to be entangled with all the subatomic particles, and therefore, since the larger objects are assemblies of subatomic particles, consciousness is entangled with the large objects as well.

Since your awareness has demonstrable levels of self-awareness within it, it would follow that your consciousness has levels of consciousness. It would appear that these levels may be associated with different levels of brain activity. These are sometimes referred to as the “α, β, δ and θ” (alpha, beta, delta and theta) states depending on the cycles or frequency of the brain waves.

The “α” (alpha) state is associated with the consciousness closest to what we perceive as normal consciousness. We may drift in and out of this state for example driving down the road somewhere else in our thoughts, totally unaware of what is happening along the road, though we are aware at reactive awareness. We would react, if the car in front of us were to brake suddenly, although we might have no recollection of what happened on the journey home. We would move through this state to get to the altered awareness that takes place with shamanic drumming that initiates a shamanic experience.

In our most complete essence, we are the awareness associated with the varied levels of consciousness, including the awareness that dreams while our body is asleep. In completeness we are the awareness having experience in physicality through the human body and its interaction on a quantum level with everything else. These levels of consciousness have an interactive flow with physicality at different levels. Consequently, at one level we interact within our bodies, while at another level we interact out of our bodies. The speed of interaction varies and appears to be slowest at the level of our normal consciousness. Those of us who are able to vary this speed of interaction tend to have increased ability with physical activity such as sport.

It is the interaction with the multiplicity of quantum events that creates the reality that we perceive. In fact, because each of our consciousness is unique though the same, it would be quite likely that even though we collectively create the same common consciousness based reality, each of our perceptions of it are different, making it a unique different reality. It is likely that what makes it common to us is our agreement upon labels.

In essence then we are consciousness creating our own reality.

The planet is a living respiratory entity. The plants act as the in-breath, taking CO₂ and then converting this to oxygen. This is then provided, so that the out-breath which is the burning of O₂ to form CO₂ may then take place. It is the living animal which breathes in oxygen to breathe out CO₂, but any process which converts O₂ to CO₂, as for example a forest fire, or for that matter even an automobile may fulfill this function. Thus every living out-breath must be matched by a balancing in-breath or else breathing ceases entirely and life ends. It must be understood that life consists of animal life plus plant life, taken together. It is not possible to have one without the other as they sustain each other. They are embedded within each other. Once you are able to see this you then realize that sustainability can only be accomplished if this is honored.

So important is the idea, that there must be substantial forests to balance the use of O₂ that is converted to CO₂. This has partially dealt with the idea of the carbon footprint. However, we cannot solely rely on some other country than ourselves to produce the O₂ we need by leaving their forests in place. Each and every country together needs to make sure that they are not reducing their forests. They need to be sure that they are creating a sustainable ratio between their forests plus their agriculture balanced against their animals, humans and human machinery consuming oxygen to create carbon dioxide.

This is really simple as we have to create the modern equivalent of what aboriginal cultures have usually done to remain sustainable and in balance.

In other words, if we say to our child Mr. Jones is fat, overweight or obese it does not become derogatory unless we pass along a negative feeling of judgment, implying that the individual Mr. Jones is to be looked down upon or held in disdain because of his obesity. If in fact we say that Mr. Jones is obese and in need of our help to get upstairs a completely different emotion is tapped.

The time has come for us to face up to the obesity which befalls us at this time. First and foremost obesity is the result of choice. Obesity can be corrected through choice. I realize that this flies in the face of conventional medical wisdom. We see obesity in terms of dysfunctional bodies and through all kinds of other glasses. Obesity results from what we put into our mouths. We choose what we put into our mouths and thus what we become because of those choices. It also results from our activity or lack and how we make those choices. It is related to how we perceive ourselves in relation to others as we produce stress. This is yet another aspect of choice. Who we are in our choices helps to create the choices most easily open to the next generation.

We own these choices and when we consciously do then we can change outcomes. In order to own our choices we have to be able to see the truth. Here we use truth to mean what actually is. Oftentimes we see a distortion of what actually is, rather than what truly is. It is a bit tricky here, because what we see is our perception and not the same that others will see. Frequently, then we do not share the same perception, but nevertheless there is some reality that is shared. When it is markedly distorted, there is no actual validity to what we perceive. This is a description of the politically correct vision of weight. This means that many overweight persons will see themselves as being normal weight. This illusion is created by two things. One is seeing that everyone around is not much different, being overweight and considering this normal. The second is that when everyone refers euphemistically to the overweight person in less honest terms they come to perceive themselves as not being overweight.

The reality, though, is that weight does affect health, wellbeing and one’s life generally and so whether or not one thinks of themself as overweight, it does have a consequence, much as the consequence of gravity if one falls off a roof. The importance here is to generate and to have discernment. We have to learn to practice discernment, which is to see things as they really are.

It is truly meaningless, because life itself is a cycle and blocking the cycle will prevent life from sustaining itself. This is an important lesson, which seems to be lost on modern society. We program ourselves in a linear fashion. Human life is a biologic manifestation and is so constrained. There is no purpose in children and offspring if the parents do not die. Birth is only sustainable in the presence of death. Living organisms can be only sustained in a cycle, a cycle including birth and death. Otherwise the resources that sustain life cannot be re-cycled. The 2011 movie “In Time” addresses this idea peripherally.

It is useful to remind ourselves that our very survival depends upon our sharing. We may superficially think that this means sharing resources with other countries and other humans. But our sharing is dependent upon our resources being sustainable.
Sustainability does not become possible without recognizing the interdependence of everything in the cycle of interlocking living organisms. Inherent, in this cycle, is the death of interdependent organisms which create the sustainability of the cycle, as it allows another organism to sustain life from the use of the dead organism for sustenance.

You might well think that the algae, which are one of the basic organisms that fix the carbon dioxide to create the building blocks of carbon based life, do not need animal life. You would be wrong as without animals, which shift oxygen to carbon dioxide, the other half of the equation would be missing. Plants cannot survive without animals and animals cannot survive without plants. They are in an interdependent dance of balance. Humans it turns out require a multiplicity of plants. First, they require enough of an abundance of plants which can convert carbon dioxide to oxygen, then they require a variety of plants, from which they can glean the nutrition to make their life possible so that birth, growth and death can be supported. They require the bacteria which process plants and animals in the environment, as well as those which are symbiotes in the intestinal tract and other places. They also require the multiplicity of animals which live in balance in the environment to maintain it exactly as it is.

The idea that animal life or human life is somehow more valuable than plant life fails to acknowledge their interdependence. They cannot possibly survive without each other. Thus an agreement about water has to see that water is a resource that is needed by humans, plants and animals with each variety of one or the other having a unique place in the survival of all in entirety, as it allows for the respiration of the planet (the exchange of oxygen for carbon dioxide and vice versa).

If this is so, then when outcomes fail to be what we desire or what serves, then since we have no responsibility then we can blame someone else. If, when we assign blame, we investigate and find that blame does not reside there, we can shift the blame to someone else. We can keep doing this serially and none of the blame comes back to us, since we bear no responsibility. From this it can be seen that from the very first opportunity we choose not to accept any responsibility.

Following assignment of blame, usually we have the feeling that others whom we blame should be held accountable for their actions. So we shine the light of accountability on everyone else.

It does turn out however, that events are not unidirectional. They do not start there and move here solely on the basis of what the other person is doing. Events are really interactive. There is some degree of give and take, action and reaction, a literal back and forth. That means always the responsibility is shared because there is action and reaction on both parts forming an interaction.

By accepting the culture of blame, we become powerless to change our experience for we fail to recognize the interactive nature of things. To change our experience we must become responsible for it. If we become responsible then we cannot blame others for it. It this state of responsibility, we can see that we are affected by what others do, but they are not responsible for our outcome. We can choose our response which in turn defines our outcomes. We in that way can shine the light of accountability upon ourselves.

The lesson here is that every outcome in our society is based on this. If our society is to have different outcomes, then we collectively will have to choose different responses which will lead to different outcomes. But, foremost we must accept responsibility and hold ourselves accountable for all of our outcomes.

A near death experience is, however, interesting. It has certain characteristics. Perhaps, the most significant is that at the onset of the near death experience, one has the awareness that life is about to end and one simultaneously has no fear of death. In other words, one is not in a state of thinking or processing in thought. One is simply in a state of knowing. This knowing is from a place of awareness and observation. So observation is not simply visual, but it is also a state of feeling, that is accompanied by a state of calmness. After becoming aware that life is about to end, one becomes aware of the expansion of awareness to include multiple simultaneous happenings. One can easily become aware of events proceeding in a stepwise fashion to the evolution of the end of life. In the same moment one can be re-living all the events in one’s life from birth to the current moment in a timeless instant. Yet even as this is happening in a split second one is aware of all the events that are taking place around one. One is participating from a place of observation and knowing. The interesting thing is that is happening in the moments up to the event that is the end of life. It becomes a near death experience when this event does not occur or does occur but does not end life in way that it was going to. Indeed, what does take place prior to this is that even before the final event of life one has begun to shift awareness and expand it. In fact some do expand awareness to include relatives and others nearby, becoming aware of their feelings. Interestingly enough these persons have these experiences from a place of observation and knowing.

Then there are those who do experience the event that ends life and do experience a seeming portal that they traverse. These individuals tell of meeting relatives who have previously died. They often tell of being informed that their life is not complete as they will need to return to finish incomplete business.

It is difficult for most physicians to understand this as they have not had these experiences. Perhaps the most interesting knowledge that one has after these experiences, is that the ability to have multiple awareness of many events or things, even as one is having an entire life review with complete recall of each feeling associated, is confirmation that our awareness does not exist in time but only in our experiences.

The importance of sharing near death experiences in this way is to help us remember who we really are. It is in this moment, when we remember that we are consciousness awareness and that we have bodies but we are not bodies, that we remember who we really are.

It may seem like endless abstraction, when we start to talk about this place, but imagine the place from which you begin speech, just before you formulate the idea of which give voice to in speech. This is the place of pure potential, the wellspring from which your idea bubbles before it finds voice. Because of the nature of mathematical operations such as addition and subtraction, we have created the concept of zero, a place void of value or any content. Unfortunately, it leaves us with the idea that, in the absence of measurable content, there can exist, only emptiness.

This is, however, not a place of emptiness, as this is the place that all arises from and is therefore a place of potential. In physics we talk about a body having potential energy simply by being in a place. Shifting from this place enables the body to gain kinetic energy as it moves. In a similar fashion this is a place of potential, as form arises from it to assume existence, even as the body gains kinetic energy as it shifts position.

It is much easier to see this space when we talk about the place from which ideas arise in consciousness. To us this is a simple abstraction. However, when we shift this idea to the material world it becomes much more difficult as we have a much different idea about things that we can touch. The idea that something physical could manifest from an abstraction is a remote concept to most, to say the least. Yet this is exactly what quantum physics at its most basic level would say. Yet we have the most difficulty with this, simply because we have difficulty with the idea of the absence of the measureable within the void, believing it is the same as saying the void is empty. It is now obvious that the universe and what it arises from is not that simple, either in concept or in how or if it may be measured.

Of what value is this to us anyway? Does this mean anything to us in our daily lives?
It is difficult to see, if we believe that our daily lives have the sole purpose in our continued existence of providing food and shelter. If there is some greater purpose to our existence, as would be demonstrated by our connection to all that exists in a quantum fashion, then we will have to acknowledge that information regarding this can only be available from the space in between.

Whether or not we attempt contact with the space in between will be determined by who we see ourselves to be. If we see ourselves as puny simple entities which are blown by the winds of time, we will indeed have little interest and restrict ourselves to ceaseless activity chasing food and shelter. If on the other hand we can see ourselves as a piece of the quantum connected universe, then every choice of activity we make will have a bearing on the quantum outcomes possible in the universe and the greatest satisfaction will come from having an idea of how each choice can and will affect such outcomes. This information is available in the space in between.

On top of this we have to add the fact of the sophistication of the biologic machinery versus the level of sophistication of the persons making changes. The difference in the level of sophistication of the designer would be as if a carpenter were trying to fix a modern computer driven automobile engine with his tools, a hammer, nails, saw and a screwdriver. Pieces could be removed to alter the behavior of the car without any idea of how this would affect overall function. This is analogous to the state of our medicine, yet we have the arrogance to say, because we are carpenters equipped as we are with the equivalent tools, the problems are all solvable with screws and screwdrivers, nails and hammers because we are simply unaware of electric tools we simply say non-mechanical tools do not exist.

A far better approach is to measure output and to change the inputs to determine the characteristics of the biologic black box. We have determined that it is self-regulating and self-healing. There are enough spontaneous cures to tell us this. We should change our approach in experimenting with the black box by leaving it intact and studying its characteristics. We may be able to glean more information about generating the behavior that we want from it based solely on input. It is far more likely to be effective.

There are a number of reasons why the bottom up approach is not successful. All systems are governed by Newton’s Laws whenever attempts are made to produce local changes. In effect Newton’s Laws are created at the point of resistance, within the system, to local change. The system permits small local changes, but as these increase in magnitude so does the resistance. This eventually becomes energy prohibitive on a local level. Such effects create a circumstance that dooms such attempts to failure. Each new generation of antibiotics becomes more cost prohibitive and usually despite promise, showing only marginal improvement. This is an example of Newton’s Laws within a biologic system. These can be bypassed only by looking at input/output where the shifting balance within the system depending on input is able to generate the desired output.

The lesson here is that unless, as individuals or as society, we approach problems from the perspective of restoring balance then we will inevitably fail.

In a sense we can become one with the experience in the temporary fashion, because all experience has a beginning and an end, so therefore it is temporary. It is also temporary because it changes; it is this and then it is that. Here, the sense is the same as the ‘estar’ version of the verb ‘to be’. If it is changeable in form, then it cannot truly be permanent. If it is not permanent, can it be real?

The answer is actually no. For it to be real it must be permanent. All we have discovered about the universe leads us to believe that it is not permanent as it is ever-changing. If it is ever- changing it cannot be everlasting, having therefore, a beginning and an end.

So as a matter of course only the sense of the ‘estar’ version of the verb ‘to be’ can be used to describe anything that has form, since we know it oscillates between form and non-form. The only sense of permanence associated with the verb ‘to be’ is legitimately is the state of potential from which all temporary oscillatory being arises. That is to say, I am nothing, yet have the potential for everything, is the only way to use the permanent sense of the verb ‘to be’. This represents the only unchanging state which exists and, therefore, the only state that is real.

What does this mean to us? It means that we have to acknowledge and claim this sense of the permanent state of potential which then enables us to create any additional state that we may deem necessary or may desire to have experience of.