Quantum Consciousness (Book Review)

When he was about 14 or 15 years old Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez made the astute observation that: “The biggest challenge we face is shifting human consciousness, not saving the planet. The planet does not need saving. We do.”¹

The young environmental and climate activist was right then, and still is. We need to shift human consciousness.

Peter Smith’s wonderful book, Quantum Consciousness, gives us a taste of what such shifted consciousness might look like, and how we might get there.

For Smith (and, I assume, Martinez,) consciousness is not simply a shift to becoming more conscious. Shifting quantum consciousness involves a complete overhaul and re-envisaging of what consciousness entails.

Smith utilises concepts from within quantum physics to elucidate and explain the realms of consciousness open to us – if we are willing to take the journey.

Quantum consciousness does not reside in our brain, Smith tells us. Indeed, consciousness is not even located within our bodies. We reside in consciousness. This idea is fundamental to Smith’s ideas and concepts.

Once this idea is recognised then the four key essences of quantum consciousness can be understood more clearly. Smith borrows four aspects from quantum physics and slightly re-words them for us non-physicists to understand. The Observer Effect becomes The Creator Effect, Non-locality becomes Everywhereness, Entanglement becomes Intanglement, and the Holographic Universe becomes Holographic Healing.

With these four key concepts in mind Smith takes us into the realms of: parallel lives, past lives, the power of beliefs, inter-connection, multi-verses, communication across distance and time, interdimensional consciousness, our role and place in nature, and other possibilities that many would dismiss as esoteric “nonsense.” Such dismissal is misplaced. It has been said that the mind is like a parachute – it only works when it is open.³ Quantum Consciousness shows us what possibilities exist, if we are open to them.

Smith is highly qualified to write this book. He has studied various forms of hypnotherapy and has been the President of the Michael Newton Institute for Life Between Lives Hypnotherapy – an institute with trained therapists in more than 40 countries around the world. He has many years experience in working with people in various states of consciousness, and utilises many of these cases to illustrate the concepts within his book.

Furthermore, Peter Smith’s writing style is straight-forward and easy to read. He expresses complex ideas in plain, uncomplicated, language. This makes it easy to grasp the concepts that otherwise might be difficult to understand.

This blog has a leaning towards a collective approach to how we live on this planet in a sustainable and amenable manner. Hence, I was delighted to read the final two chapters (Changing the Landscape of Planet Earth and, The Evolved Landscape of Planet Earth) wherein Smith addresses the links and correspondences between our individual consciousness and our collective consciousness, and how each helps the other to further evolve.

This is also a relatively short book (less than 200 pages) making it highly accessible to anyone wishing to gain further insight into what a shift in human consciousness might entail.

Notes:

1. Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez is the Youth Director of the environmental organisation Earth Guardians. In 2015, he and 20 other young people brought a lawsuit against the US government for failure to act against climate change. Although the court sympathised with the young people, the Court “Reluctantly (concluded) that this remedy (a government plan to phase out fossil fuels) is not within our constitutional powers.”

2. Peter Smith, Quantum Consciousness, Llewellyn Publications, Woodbury, Minnesota, 2019.

3. This quote is attributed to Frank Zappa, the enigmatic musician and composer.

How Much Do We Need To Cut Back?

Today (28 July 2022) is Earth Overshoot Day – the day on which the Earth can no longer cope with human exploitation and waste. It comes around every year, although (depressingly) it normally comes one or two days earlier each year than it did the year before.¹ This year it is one day earlier than it was last year.

Overshoot Day is an important marker as it provides us with a very good indicator as to how quickly we are degrading the planet upon which we rely for our nourishment, shelter, clean water, and fresh air.

Closely associated with Overshoot Day is the calculation of how many Earth-like planets we would need to be able to continue to support our lifestyles indefinitely.

At present, on a global average, we would need 1.7 Earth-like planets!

Remember though, that this figure of 1.7 is the average for the entire planet. The rich nations require a lot more than 1.7 Earth-like planets. How many? Well, the computations have been done. What those computations show is bleak.

The U.S.A., Canada, and U.A.E. would each require 5.1 Earth-like planets. Australia would require 4.5, Russia 3.4, New Zealand 3.3, and Japan 2.9. The European nations require between 2.6 and 4 Earth-like planets each.

What about China? I hear some ask. Well, yes, the Overshoot Day and number of planets required by China has been calculated. China would require 2.4 Earth-like planets.²

What of the rest of the world? Most of the African nations, and much of Asia (including India) and Latin America require 1.0 or less Earth-like planets.

We can now ask ourselves: How much do we need to cut back in order to bring our lifestyles back to a sustainable level where we require just one Earth-like planet – this one Earth?

If you live in one of the rich nations then the answer to this question is simple. A lot!

Again, the calculations are straight forward. On a country-by-country basis, the rich nations of the world need to reduce their consumption and production of waste by the following amounts:

• U.S.A., Canada, and U.A.E. by more than 80%.
• Australia by almost 80%.
• Russia and New Zealand by around 70%.
• The European nations by between 60% - 75% each.
• Japan by 65%.
• China and South Africa by 58% each, and Brazil by 37%.

These numbers are extremely important. There is so much hype and focus on climate change and carbon emissions, that the importance of Overshoot often gets ignored, misunderstood, or lost in the debates. Climate is not the issue – Overshoot is. Carbon emissions are a by-product of Overshoot.

Dealing with Overshoot would automatically deal with carbon emissions.

Replacing and Substituting Will Not Work

When one truly considers and understands the implications of how much we must reduce our consumption and waste, it becomes obvious that trying to do so by replacing, or substituting with alternatives does not work.

We must reduce (by up to 80%) our use and production of transport. Replacing cars with electric (or hydrogen) vehicles will not work. We have to walk, cycle, or take public transport. We have to stop flying.

We still need food, but we do need to reduce our meat consumption (by at least 80%.) Furthermore, we must dramatically reduce our reliance on food that is produced overseas (and out-of-season) and food that is produced by monocultural agricultural transnationals.

We must cut back on our use of technology and our desire for ever more of the latest whiz-bang techo-invention. For example, replacing a mobile phone every three years does not work.

We must reduce our electricity demand – significantly. Switching the production of electricity from fossil fuels to “alternatives” will not work.

We must reduce our waste. Throwing away food, tins, paper, cardboard, plastic, and other items does not work. Especially, we must curtail (not simply reduce) our production of toxic wastes.

In each and every one of these cases above we, in the rich nations, must cut back by at least 60% and in many cases by up to 80%.

Can we do that?

Can we afford not to?

Will we do that?

Notes:

1. I say “normally” because in 2020 it went “backwards” by about three weeks, because of the pandemic induced lockdowns around the world.

2. China is often pointed at when it comes to discussions about how much carbon is produced. Yes, China needs to reduce its consumption and waste production, but we in the rich nations cannot point fingers. We are far more responsible for Overshoot than is China.

Three Ways To Survive

We’re all on target to be Carbon Zero by 2050. Right?

The Tipping Points have not been tipped yet. Right?

We still have time to avert the climate crisis. Right?

The signs and indicators do not suggest an affirmative answer to any of those assertions.

We have entered a period of social/environmental collapse. We are in the midst of the Sixth Mass Extinction. The biologist Eugene Stoermer is credited with coining the term Anthropocene – the proposed geologic epoch in which humanity has so transformed and exploited the Earth that our (human) actions and behaviours now drive the fate of every living being upon the planet.

If we fully understand the meaning of Anthropocene and mass extinction, then we have to also admit this: Homo Sapiens is on that Extinction list.

However, we know from previous mass extinctions that although many species go extinct, there are also many who survive – albeit depleted severely in numbers.

If Homo Sapiens is to be one of those ‘surviving’ species then how will we achieve that? One thing is for sure; that is that our behaviour towards the planet, towards other-than-human species, and towards and amongst ourselves, must change.

There appears (to this writer anyway) only three possible pathways towards this behaviour change.

1.     We choose – individually, collectively, socially, economically – to change.

2.     Some authority (governments, UN or other global authority, benevolent dictator …) enacts legislation to compel behavioural change.

3.     The planet will force us to do so.

How likely are these three pathways?

1. We do not appear to be changing by choice. Since the turn of the century we have seen an increase in energy use per capita, as well as the consequent increase in carbon emissions. There is no sign of this abating. We are eating red meat at a greater rate than we did so 50 years ago. Although covid reduced our air travel, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) expects traveller numbers to reach 4 billion in 2024, exceeding pre-covid levels.¹ We are driving more cars and driving them further.

It is not just consumers who are not choosing different behaviours. Producers too, are continuing to produce not only their primary products. They are producing by-products² in bucket-loads; CO, methane, and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs.) Also in the product mix are: soil loss, polluted waterways, animal habitat loss, air pollution, toxic waste, e-waste, deforestation, and a whole host of other local and/or globally damaging products.

Neither consumers nor producers are choosing to make behavioural changes.

2. How likely are we to accept legislation that requires us to make the behavioural changes necessary? The events of the past couple of years would suggest it is highly unlikely. No matter which side of the coronavirus/vaccination debate you took (even if you took neither) it is impossible to deny that we were socially divided and polarised. Recent events in US political history are further evidence for a deeply polarised society.

Behind that polarisation seems to be an unwillingness to adhere to governmental decrees. “I will not be dictated to,” is the mantra. Or “if I am willing, then it will only be to this dictator, not that one.”

The massive threat of collapse and extinction is unlikely to cause us to accept authority as an arbiter of behavioural change.

Even were we persuaded to accept governmental legislation, there is little, if any, indication that governments anywhere in the world sufficiently recognise the direness of our situation.

3. That leaves the planet. Already, at least four of the nine planetary boundaries seem to have been surpassed.³

Only a few years ago it was thought that the earth’s climate related tipping points would not be tipped this century.⁴ It now appears that some of these tipping points will be tipped well before the end of the century. Indeed, there are some indications that some may have already passed their tipping point.

As we pass these tipping points and planetary boundaries, the planet will force behavioural change upon us.

Sadly, for Homo Sapiens, it appears that the planet is the only actor that is willing to get us to behave differently.

And, just to rub it in. The planet is indifferent as to whether we make it or not.

Notes:

1. IATA Press Release No. 10, 1 March 2022. https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2022-releases/2022-03-01-01/  Accessed 14 June 2022.

2. Although commonly referred to as by-products, these should really be termed products. The label by-product suggests something that the producer is not responsible for and can be dismissed as an externality.

3. https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html  Accessed 14 June 2022

4. See a previous rainbowjuice.org blogpiece here.

Right Of Speech - Right Speech

The Right to Freedom of Expression and Speech seems to be an indisputable one doesn’t it? After all, it has been a right for centuries. France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen adopted in 1789 during the French Revolution declared it an inalienable right. Two years later, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected freedom of speech.

In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 19 of which declares that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

Today, we hear this right being insisted upon often. It is insisted upon by those wishing to spread misinformation and lies as much as by those wishing to oppose such lies.

Underlying this insistence is the assertion that the individual is paramount. “My rights,” we hear, “are inalienable, and shall not be impinged upon by society.”

The cult of the individual is very much a westernised one. Although, even in western cultures it may be only fairly recent. Alexis de Tocqueville, writing in 1856, said that individualism was “not a word used by our ancestors, for no one could rely solely on themselves to survive and prosper.”¹

More recently, individualism has grown another limb – that of Toxic Individualism. Having a belief in oneself, or a self-reliance, is one thing, but that sense of self becomes toxic individualism when an individual refuses to recognise or understand the impact one has on the lives of others and their community.

Right Speech

Several non-westernised cultures have a differing understanding of what it means to be an individual. The individual is not separate from, nor separate to, other people or nature. The Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, recognises that “I am, therefore you are. You are, therefore I am. We inter-are.”

This concept of inter-connection and non-separation is quite different to the westernised idea of the individual as standing apart.

The recognition of inter-connection has, as would be expected, a bearing upon speech. Less emphasis is given to Right of Speech and more given to Right Speech.

Right Speech is given prominence in the 8-fold path of the Buddha. Although often translated as right, the Pali word samma, could also be translated as best, wise, skillful. Indeed, such translations may be the better ones, as the word right has unfortunate associations with one side of the right-wrong dualism.

If we consider the concept of Wise Speech, Skillful Speech, or Best Speech, we begin to understand the impact our speech can have on those around us, and even upon ourselves.

When the Buddha introduced the 8-fold path, he also spoke of the connection between thoughts, words, deeds, and character. The following poem encapsulates the Buddha’s ideas, although the derivation of the poem is disputed:

“The thought manifests as the word;

The word manifests as the deed;

The deed develops into habit;

And the habit hardens into character;

So watch the thought and its ways with care;

And let it spring from love

Born out of concern for all beings.

As the shadow follows the body,

As we think, so we become.”²

When we speak our words have effects. (If they did not, why would we speak them?) Often we can see the effect our words have had, after we have spoken them. It is as though we watch the ripples flowing behind us in the wake of the ship we are steering. Once the wake has been made, we can no longer control the ripples. Yet, we also have the option to understand the ripples we make, before we make them. This is the bow-wave of our ship. The wake that precedes us. To be a-wake literally means to be so attuned to the wake we are creating that we fully understand its ripples.

The Right Speech of the 8-fold path is further enunciated and specifically advises avoiding, 1. lies, 2. divisive speech, 3. harsh speech, and 4. idle chatter.

What if we were to be mindful of Right Speech as we proclaim our Right of Speech? Would we see the divisiveness, the hatred, the bigotry, and the prejudices we see, and hear, today? Maybe, although I suspect there would be much less. And in that lessening, we might create a space for us to truly listen to one another. We might enter a deep listening, similar to that which Thich Nhat Hanh hopes for:

“Deep listening is the foundation of Right Speech. If we cannot listen mindfully, we cannot practice Right Speech. No matter what we say, it will not be mindful, because we’ll be speaking only our own ideas and not in response to the other person.”

Right Speech does not suggest that we give up our Right to Speech, only that we use it wisely.

Notes:

1. Alexis de Tocqueville, L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution (The Old Regime and the Revolution), 1856.

2. This poem has often been attributed to the Buddha, yet it does not appear in any of the early Buddhist texts. The origin remains uncertain, although many Buddhists would say that the sentiments are those of the Buddha, even if the Buddha did not say them. Other scholars suggest the poem may be of Christian origin from the 19^th century.

Visiting The World

‘I don’t want to end up simply having visited this world.’¹

Visiting There

Facebook has many quizzes asking us to name (or count) the number of places we have visited: cities, countries, scenic wonders…

But, how many times have we stood in awe at the beauty and wonder right in front of us? How often do we wake with the dawn? Do we listen to the calls and responses of birds? How often have we watched a young child (or pup, or kitten, or cub) take their first tentative, stuttering steps? How many times have we gazed into the eyes of those we love and care for? How many times have we cried; tears of joy, tears of grief, tears of laughter, tears of love?

How many times, too, have we visited our inner selves? Have we visited enough times to know our soul? Have we visited enough times to understand our true place in the world?

The idea, and reality, of tourism, is a fairly recent one in human history. During the Age of Empires (Greek, Egyptian, Roman) some people travelled purely to satisfy their curiosity. Even then though, most travel was by traders or raiders (or variations thereof.) During the Middle Ages, tourism dropped away significantly. It was not until the Renaissance that tourism re-emerged.

That era also introduced colono-tourism to the global arena. We know well the devastating effects this had on indigenous cultures world-wide. From the rape and pillage of Africa and the carving up of that continent for European purposes, to the genocide that swept through the Americas, and the over-running of Pacific societies, including Australia and New Zealand.

Colono-tourism then, and the tourism of today, wreaks havoc on the peoples who have called various places their home. In the process, cultures have been decimated and languages destroyed.

This destruction has not been limited to people, culture, and language. The many other-than-human species upon this planet have faced loss of habitat (homelessness), depopulation, and for many – extinction.

Today, the notion of eco-tourism has been touted as a means by which we might visit the world in a sustainable manner. However, this may not be the case. A very recent (April 2022) paper recognises that the international travel component of eco-tourism to and from the destination has a greater environmental footprint than that of the footprint during the entire length of stay at the destination.² In other words, eco-tourism is not sustainable.

And all for what?

So that we (the rich, the privileged) can visit. “See the world,” we hear. “Travel broadens the mind” we are told.

Whilst that may be true for a minority of travellers, for the vast majority it is simply an opportunity to take a few “selfies,” and tick the box that says, “Been there, Done that.”

For others, travelling the world is even more damaging. It is an opportunity to export their ideologies of consumerism, exploitation, and superiority. Sadly, this is a truer picture of the modern traveller than is the idealistic one of the “broaden-the-mind” category.

(I must admit that I have been guilty of much of this myself.)

The line from Mary Oliver’s poem at the beginning of this blog reminds us that we don’t need to travel in order to visit the world. We can visit the place on Earth where we are born, live, and die, without really knowing that place, or knowing who we are, and what gifts we may bring to the world.

Abiding Here

Let us not be simply visitors or tourists. Let us be active, creative, and engaged participants. Let us have:

·       The desire to discover our true being,

·       The humility to know that we are but one part of an highly inter-connected world,

·       The curiosity needed to be open to the stories and mysteries of all of life (including other-than-human beings,)

·       The courage to walk into the depths of despair, sadness, and loss the world offers us,

·       The discernment to notice the effects of our actions (whether harmful or beneficial) and be able to modify those actions if need be,

·       The tenacity to keep learning about our unique soul, and our thoughts, feelings, and multi-faceted being,

·       The serenity to stop and listen to and observe, the beauty, the wonder, and the joy, of the fullness of life,

·       The audacity to confront our prejudices, bigotry, and insensitivity to the lived reality of others,

·       The grace to accept the vagaries and vicissitudes life throws us,

·       The willingness to laugh, to cry, to sing, to shout with abandon,

·       The sagacity to know the limits of our knowledge,

·       The temerity to look ourselves in the eye and ask, “Who are you really?”

·       The bravery to let go of our need for comfort and control,

·       The wisdom to let go and accept the impermanence of all things.

Maybe then we might be able to say to ourselves, “I did more than simply visit this world.”

Notes:

1. This is the final line of the poem When Death Comes by the American poet Mary Oliver (September 10, 1935 – January 17, 2019) who was inspired by nature for many of her poems.

2. Maria Serena Mancini et al., Ecological Footprint and Tourism: Development of sustainability monitoring of ecotourism packages in Mediterranean Protected Areas, in “Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism,” 23 April 2022.