The state of allowance first begins with the intent to heal. See previous pieces on intent in Intent and Intent II. In this active state of intent one has to choose to have the experience of healing. This state once tapped into is held within consciousness just as the intent to move the crystal is held in Intent II.

The next piece in the state of allowance is to not be in opposition to what is happening. This may seem paradoxical at first but is really not. Opposition occurs because you may believe that ill health itself is harmful to you. This is not true. This is because the ill health is a feedback about a relationship. It is the relationship that is harmful to you. Think about the symptoms you feel when you put your hand on a hot stove. It is the relationship with the stove that is harmful. Therefore you should welcome the information from ill health as it is your friend. Therefore, be not in opposition but rather embrace it for what it brings.

On the second level, if we remember the black box systems concept (see Menorrhagia) then we find that utilization of energy has these attributes. When we perceive opposition, we turn on the adaptation mode. This leads to increased provision of fuel (hyperglycemia or high blood sugar), increased transfer of fuel (increased heart rate and blood pressure), and increased shutdown of fuel intake (poor digestion and its consequences). Physiologically we will have increased cortisol and cholesterol as well and all of those consequences. If we activate them by perceiving opposition, we create their consequences. This also activates the immune system, decreasing its effect, (see the Analogy of the Immune system). This combination can be deadly in that it will tend to potentiate the state of ill health. By giving up opposition and stabilizing these effects we are able to begin to harmonize the state with the state of the greater system. That is to say our consciousness will harmonize with the greater consciousness. It is important to remember the greater consciousness is still us. It is, therefore, beneficent and always acting in our best interests. In this way it is possible to feel gratitude for the whole situation. Now, note here we have not addressed the outcome. Why?  The outcome is truly not important. However, the outcome is what we are here about. The outcome we desire is restored health. Suffice to say, if the ill health is about a relationship that is in need of change, and it is received in consciousness without opposition or judgment, consciousness is left in that free state then adjusting the perception to bring it in line with the true relationship. The ill health is then resolved.

This conditional restoration can be accelerated by actively using intent in the process. This is how the outcome can be used as a focus.

The event determines the path to the event. Focusing on the path necessitates focusing on intermediate events. These intermediate events have not only a path to the desired event, but also to undesired events. Thus focusing on the intermediate events will increase the likelihood of finding undesired events.

Therefore, focusing on the event itself allows the probabilities of the most direct path to fall into place even if they are more unlikely. It is easier to backtrack from the event through unlikely events in a path back to the original choice than from choosing an intermediate event.

The successful, therefore, not only choose the event, but deliberately choose not to associate with a particular path to the event. This is exactly the opposite of what the unsuccessful do. Success is then determined by how you manage the quantum mechanics. As the experience of successful people will show, it is not necessary to know quantum mechanics, but merely how to utilize it.

I start out by telling her that hysterectomies are often not successful at treating chronic pelvic pain. Frequently, there is relief for a year or two, and then the patient returns with the same pain, often to be referred to another physician, sometimes a GI physician, other times a psychiatrist, many times with improvement but oftentimes without. I then tell her that before I make any judgments, I will have to evaluate her. She is obese. I have her to lay flat on her back and raise her legs some 6-8 inches from the flat position. She is tender at the insertion of the rectus muscles on the left at the pelvic brim (top of the pubic hair). She has tenderness of the paraspinal muscles on the left. I place both her hands on the equivalent muscles on my back and abdomen, moving so as to show how the muscles work together, contracting and relaxing in opposition to each other. I show her how both are contracted when bent at the waist. I show her when hers are in this position it produces the pain that she has. I am able to show her that this is where she has her pain and to duplicate it with her rolling off her back and lifting herself from the reclining position precipitates the pain. I show her how lifting the abdomen up (relaxing the abdominal wall muscles) relieves it.

I then tell her about the black box model that I use to demonstrate how the body controls its use of energy (see menorrhagia, biologic extended systems). I describe how this is driven by the emotional state. I also describe the analogy of the immune system and the gatecrasher concept (see immune system analogy). When I describe how cortisol is increased when one has an inappropriate major life threatened response to a minor non life threatening stimulus, she tells me that her weight fluctuates between 400 lb and 240 lb, her present weight, according to her level of stress.

Pelvic examination shows that there is tenderness, and when the cervix (mouth of the womb) is moved and when movement is in either direction, she feels pain then in both sides. I discuss the immune system and how a pelvic infection can reflect stress and how she sees her relationship with others, particularly her husband or partner. I offer to treat her with antibiotics, again reminding her of the immune gatecrasher analogy, and her need to change her perspective and her choices which create stress about events and results. I remind her that stress does not occur, but is rather chosen. I discuss how her choice of response creates stress (major life threatened response) and causes increased cortisol which is responsible for changing the glucose (recruited from glycogen in the liver and muscles for immediate response) into fat. This causes an increase in weight. This in turn alters the estrogen levels and affects the metabolism of sugar, with further insulin resistance. This is compatible with the multiple cysts on the ovary and the irregular cycles. She now tells me that she has been having irregular cycles. She is also able to understand why she has also become hypertensive, as this is all connected together. As we are ending the conversation, I can see the light bulb go on behind her eyes, as she finally understands.

During the course of the examination she is asked “Why does she smoke?”

Her reply is that it is because of stress. I proceed to discuss the perception of whether a glass is half-empty or half-full. I ask for her perception which she replies is that a glass is half-empty. I then point out that the half state is neutral and that in the moment of her perception it becomes what she perceives, and from that point she will experience it in that way. I point out that from this perspective stress does not occur but rather is chosen. She agrees.

I then ask her again why she smokes. Her reply this time is that she smokes because she wants to and I reply that this is exactly so. Any experience she is having, she is having because she wants to. She wants to have this experience because she chose it. In fact, she is pregnant because she wants to be. She is with her partner, because she wants to and chooses to be with him. She is on methadone because she wants to be. She will continue to have these experiences until she does not want to have them anymore. Her partner sitting in the corner smiles, and says yes in agreement, as if the conversation is not new. She exudes dissatisfaction with this perspective, though she does not become angry. She does not want to be reminded she is having this experience by choice and not by circumstance.

The insight here is that no one wants to be responsible for the outcomes they are having, if they perceive them to be negative. They would like to blame this on another source. The fact here is, however, she has chosen to respond to an external event and stimulus by incorporating a stress response and then tying the reduction of this to another stimulus or event, that of smoking. This is done rather than dealing with the consequences of the original stimulus or event.

In our previous discussions we have made the point that emotion drives the DNA, and creates the physical changes in the DNA, which we experience as an alteration in DNA expression. (see DNA and epigenetics). Functionally the immune system is a dynamic one, allowing two way exchange of information. The input of information from the larger system is limited and modified by the immune system. For example, the bacteria are a means of information exchange with the larger system. Bacteria are able to affect the individual’s system in a helpful and non-helpful way. They can be harmonious to the system or disharmonious. When they strengthen the individual system, they are harmonious and when they do not they create disharmony. But, what they basically do is bring information from the larger system. When the individual ceases to be of benefit or harmony to the larger system, disharmonious bacteria (pathogenic bacteria) are dispatched to the individual to provide this message. If the behavior is altered there is no problem, if it is not disease ensues. This is essentially what happens when deer overgraze a range, and the population numbers become too high for balance in the greater system. On another level, predators also perform the function of integrating harmony into the greater system. The increase in the number of pathogenic bacteria can be seen as a feedback effect purely about balance. (see Life as a system)

In the operation of the immune system as a functional interface, an analogy can be made about the dynamic interplay. One can see the immune system as a series of policemen, who man gates to an enclosure which has a party going on inside. These policemen function to keep out gatecrashers. As long as the policemen are awake there is no net inflow of gatecrashers, but if some of them fall asleep there is a net increase of gatecrashers. This is the analogy of the infection. If the awake policemen are given coffee to make them more efficient, there is a decrease in the number of gatecrashers. This is the equivalent of giving antibiotics in an infection or chemotherapy in a cancer.

One of the more interesting bits of research concerns the effect of assigning a topic of argument to a couple, and documenting the effect of this by measuring the immune function before and after the argument. It turns out it diminishes the immune function some 60%. It also turns out that writing about stresses can alter the immune function, as documented in other research by the same principal investigators.

Therefore, just how one decides to look at the world and one’s relationships to those around can affect the immune system. We should not be surprised, as the immune system is the interface that we discussed earlier, and the behavior of the immune system can be seen as a snapshot of the relationship with the greater system.

In this way we can see the possibility that cancer cells are always around, but that our relationship with those around us affect the immune system and allow it to become overwhelmed by cancer and so that a large part of changing the immune system function has to do with changing the outlook and modifying relationships.

One of the more unique problems facing us is how to make choices, when each possibility seems to lead to failure. We can find this in the way our economy works with regards to housing. It also seems to overshadow us when it comes to our health care system.

It seems as if when acting as a collective, such as being the government, we have a choice to act in a polar mutually exclusive way. The choice we have is actually based on the way that we see the problem. In other words, we perceive a problem and the potential for a polar solution for the problem. A polar solution is one that gives us an either-or approach. It is based on the way that we perceive and experience reality.

Let us for a moment think of energy. Energy really is a polar oscillation. It is an oscillation between a positive and a negative about a zero point. It may also be ocnsidered as an oscillation between a unit value positive above a zero axis and a unit value negative below the zero axis. This oscillation is basic to the way we see energy, whether electromagnetic or for that matter sound waves. All energy can be seen as an oscillation. The choice of state to be manifest is therefore a choice between positive and negative. If we are thinking about the visible spectrum, we would be choosing between observing dark or light. This is the nature of slit experiments in light and leads to observation of the condition we call a diffraction pattern when there is a summation of peaks or troughs. If the peaks come together we see a bright spot and if the troughs come together we see a dark spot. This is basic to the way we see and experience energy and reality.

We are now in the situation where making equivalent choices about our perception of reality does not provide us with the expected concrete results. Important here is the concept that previously these choices have been mutually exclusive. We were not aware of the possibility of being in the positive and the negative at the same time. In the nature of our reality there is another apparently mututally exclusive choice. This is the choice between the particle and the wave. The choice between proton and light wave is the most familiar. In physics this has been known as wave particle duality. Looked at differently, there is a third choice. The third choice is the oscillation origin point or the average between the oscillatory choices. This is in fact the zero point. The third solution is the zero point solution.

This third solution is the choice between either and or and allows some portion of both. This is the solution in the energetic sense. In the sense of the photon/wave choice, it is the choice that allows both.  It is the choice that allows the finite and the infinite to co-exist. It is the choice that allows the individual (photon) and the collective (wave pattern) to co-exist.

If we now go back to society and look at the social issues that drive and separate us now, it is possible to have a different solution. We can see that this comes down to the question of us acting as individuals separately or as a collective. In the health care debate the individual choice leads us in the direction of the Republicans,  which in the current situation leads to unsustainabilty and collapse.  If we look at the Democrats we have unsustainability at the collective level, also a prescription for failure and collapse.

The only solution is to act from the third position. This involves combining aspects of the collective and the individual in responsibility. This is the equivalent of taking the position of the zero point and bringing apparently mutually exclusive positive and negative positions and joining them together in combination.

To state it simply, in order to achieve the zero point goal at this time, we need to have “new eyes” and new perspectives in both the Democratic and Republican parties. These new and younger politicians will have the required new perspective that will eliminate the polarity that exists between both parties. It is not possible to start from a position of polar opposites and actually achieve a middle ground. It requires the ability to see that the polar opposites are both different versions of the same. We do not have the time to allow the present “old timers” to continue on their current polarizing path. We will never achieve any of the goals for health care or economic balance until this polarization ends.

She was asked if she had sexual intercourse regularly and replied somewhat sheepishly not often. I pointed out to her that her sheepish response probably reflected some degree of being uncomfortable with the idea of sexual relations with her boyfriend and this she would need to explore. She was also advised that progestin only contraception could be associated with a) normal menstrual flow, b) no menstrual flow, and c) constant irregular flow.

She underwent a pelvic examination which showed no evidence of any findings of inflammation present in the pelvis. She was advised that she probably fell into the c) category.

She was advised how the menstrual flow was controlled from the hypothalamus and pituitary glands in the brain acting in conjunction with the ovaries to produce different hormones, the final activity of which caused the lining of the uterus to grow, ripen and then shed when no pregnancy ensued.

She was given the black box analogy about the systems way of looking at the human or any organism. The characteristic input stimulus and output adaptive response was discussed. The energy flow in the black box part of the system was also discussed. The nervous system control in the sympathetic/parasympathetic system, in terms of its ability to increase or decrease energy flow and processing, in the black box portion was discussed.

She was told that the typical western medical approach was to modify the flow of the process in the black box by pharmaceuticals which affected different levels of the five part flow a) incorporation of energy b) transfer of energy c) utilization of energy d) and recycling of utilization products. She was told this is the equivalent of modifying a computer’s output by changing the chips or resistors on the motherboard. Certainly, the output would change, but there would be no predictability. This, essentially, is what happens, when a new drug is introduced, as it is not possible to truly know its effect on a population, until the entire population is exposed. From this perspective, there is no predictability, even in the use of her OCP’s. If she is a candidate for a stroke, she will not know until she has one or until she develops a clot, when pregnant.

The other approach in the black box analogy would be to see what changes in input would create the desired output adaptive response. To this end, she would have to look at the fact that human DNA is influenced by emotion. This has been experimentally shown. She would need to address this issue. This was of particular significance as she had “bad acne”, which seemed to be related both to her cycle and to her stress level, as she was to report.

She was amenable to these ideas and indicated a willingness to explore them further. She planned to return to the office in two to three months to evaluate how she was doing at that point.

Further questioning reveals that she had been having symptoms prior that were compatible with an irritable bowel syndrome (frequently diarrhea and constipation alternately), but that these were actually now improved. She wanted to know if these symptoms had anything to do with her pelvic infection.

I spoke with her about a different approach to viewing the human being. I spoke of applying the black box concept viewing the organism as a black box to which an input stimulus is applied and an output-adaptive response is noted. When viewed from a systems approach the internal processing in the black box is characterized by a) incorporation of energy b) transfer/transport of energy c) utilization of energy d) recycling products from the use of energy e) adaptive response. The adaptive response then could be added through the incorporation phase and back once more through the cycle any number of times.

She was made to understand that the sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous system could decrease or increase any of those four energy flows plus the adaptive response. She replied “yes, the fight or flight response”. It turns out that she was a student of psychology. I then told her that research showed that human emotion caused electrical responses in human DNA, in experiments. The emotional state produced by the “black box” operations, anger, fear, happiness, sadness would all produce differing responses in the DNA.

She said, “Ah! That explains why researchers say that making children with cancer laugh and be happy causes them to heal better. Also, it explained why one person reportedly fighting his cancer successfully with laughter.”

 I went on to say the final component is that the immune system represents the contact with everything else, and frequently there is metaphor in the way it responds regarding relationships with others. In fact experiments showed that immune function of a couple could be affected by simply having an argument that was assigned.

She responded, “That’s why in her psychology class they would say if back pain ensues you should see what you are carrying that belongs to others. If you have an infection you should see what you are letting in.”

I replied that is exactly how this should be interpreted, but that this is not the current way the medicine practiced in western society looks at this. I advise that we could treat the salpingitis one more time as it was improved, and that we could also use an antispasmodic for her irritable bowel syndrome. She advised that she was much better as she did not have pain ‘de novo’ as frequently and that it no longer hurt when she coughed. She said she was going to consider going into the meditative state to tap into the emotional energy state associated with her symptoms. She would, therefore, go with another week of antibiotics and would return for further problems.

Thus the results of the choices of one’s life are determined from a place of blinding, not from a place of predictable cause and effect. Negligence can occur only where there is predictability. Quantum choices made individually are indeed unpredictable. Quantum choices made collectively can be tracked and are indeed predictable, statistically, in a collective sense. This predictability is about how collective consciousness makes choices.

Now then, from this assessment, let us evaluate the cancer patient. From our place in quantum mechanics the result of the cancer is the consequence of the sum of the individual’s choices up to that moment. Whether we perceive that it is associated with environmental toxins or individual behaviors, this was an association that we created by choice. When we see it as an association here, we also realize that someone else’s association with the same choices may well produce a different consequence and net results. This further confirms the unpredictability. In the absence of predictability there cannot be negligence, and so there cannot be blame.

However, since we made our choices, we are responsible for them and their consequences. Responsibility here is different from blame. In a participatory reality, all participating have responsibility for results, because the results are collective.

This is a radically different concept. The idea may be summed up as follows:

If you come to visit a town to which you have never been before and you are intending to get to point A you will have to make some choices. These choices are based on the perception that this is the best way to get to point A. Your decision making process is always impeccable. Let us say that you get to point B. This is not where you intended to go. This, however, is a consequence of your choice. You are, therefore, responsible for this choice. Note being responsible for your choice does not mean your choice-making mechanism was faulty. It does, however, mean that the perceptive information that you used to make the choice was inaccurate. Being responsible means that, the perceptive information has to be adjusted, so that a new choice can bring the possibility of point A closer. For, even here, the place from which the new choice is made is also blinded.

I use this opportunity to point out that all things are related. I give her the example of looking at the body as a black box solely in terms of input that creates output. I present the idea of modifying output not by altering what is in the black box but by altering the input. I use analogies showing the computer and automobile as black boxes. I point out that medical treatments assume the black box is broken and try to change within the black box. I point out the equivalence of changing the computer chips to modify the output versus modifying the software.

I point out that it is the emotional output which acts upon the body that allows the body to change itself. At this point she says to me she has changed her life as she got rid of a husband with whom she had a bad relationship. She has lost a hundred pounds plus. She states that despite this everything from the perspective of her bleeding is getting worse. I tell her the story of the knee and self sabotage (see Knee I). She replies to me that I am telling her that it is in her head. She says to me that there has to be something causing this that can be fixed medically. I point out to her that this has been going on for well over fifteen years and all the trips to the physicians during this time have not changed anything. I point out that preceding physical change is emotional change. I point out that frequently patients come in with pelvic pain. On examination it will appear to be connected to the sex organs. Frequently these patients will have surgery and the pain will go away, only to return in a few years. Upon return the pain is usually exactly the same as before except now there are no organs to remove.

I ask her to go back into time and tell me when she started to put on weight. She tells me this was around the time of her puberty. She told me she was harassed because of her religion “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and because of her size. Her response at that time was to eat for it made her feel better. I point out this is still an issue she will have to deal with. She will have to be able to see that she is perfect. As I say this I can literally see her close down because she does not believe this. I point out that as a piece of the universe she is perfect and has perfect contact with everything else and because of that contact she can change any experience but she will have to become responsible for this. I can tell she is presently unwilling to be in this place of responsibility. I point out that I am there to support her and that there is enough medical indication to remove her uterus. But, I point out, it will not take care of the other problems and symptoms, beyond making her cease the bleeding. I point out that if she desires hysterectomy, it can be performed, but this has to be seen as a temporary respite from the other symptoms, while she learns to change her perspective in seeing her relationship with everything else.

Insight: The insight here is that some people are ready, only to assume partial responsibility for themselves, in the same situation that others are willing to take full responsibility. The degree of success to which one is able to have and experience a different reality depends on their ability to assume full responsibility.