We tend to have unshakeable faith in science these days, but what if what we call “magic” were actually more scientific than science?
While we tend to believe “the experts,” look for “evidence-based medicine,” (the new buzzword), and dismiss everything not proven by science as mere superstition, when it comes to applying any part of what science tells us that contradicts the way we are absolutely convinced the world works, we are really lousy at applying what science tells us is true.
For all of our faith in science, as soon as it contradicts what we believe, we are quick to ignore its discoveries. We can continue with life being business as usual, and this can go on for years.
Scientists have lived with the ambiguity of being unable to define whether light is made up of particles or waves because it changes based on the expectation of the researcher observing it. Everyone who has studied any kind of science at a high school level or beyond has heard this, yet we blithely continue to maintain that “objectivity” exists and to put great faith in what this non-existent quality reveals.
Another example is that little paragraph of basic chemistry known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This principle states that we can either know where an electron is, or how fast it is going. This little fact is mentioned in basic chemistry books, then quickly ignored for the rest of the course and the rest of our lives.
I remember hearing this as a young chemistry student and pondering the implications of this. It would, it seemed to me, change everything. How did it apply to life? What else would we know to be true based on this radical, little acknowledged fact?
What would happen, for example, if it were applied to your car? Imagine what havoc the choice between knowing where you were and how fast you were going might wreak when you were stopped for speeding by the highway patrol. “I’m sorry, Officer, you know I had to choose between knowing how fast I was going and where I was. Since I was lost I naturally chose to know where I was. Do you blame me?”
As the surprisingly popular movie “What the bleep do we know?” illustrated graphically, the principles of quantum physics are equally trippy. As portrayed in the movie, these facts which are well-known to those familiar with science are totally believable as portrayed in the movie, yet we continue to act as if the solidities we have been programmed to believe in are far more real than the repeatedly proven scientific principles we refuse to live by because they so challenge the very bedrock of what we have defined as real.
What if the problem were our very definitions? We know that our definitions influence what we see. What science begrudgingly acknowledges in its inability to define whether light consists of particles or waves demonstrates this.
What if we were to take scientific demonstration of the limitations of our definitions and apply it to our lives? Might we be able to make magic occur—magic that actually conformed to scientific principles rather than defying them because they would explode our culturally determined world-view? What if instead of taking these definitions as absolute fact, we were to question them? Might more magic occur in our lives, as a result of acting on what science knows?
What might this look like? A great first step would be to ask questions. As soon as we state something as a fact—as we are apt to do with our current world views, even when they are patently unscientific, our minds become closed to anything which doesn’t match that world view. Asking a question, on the other hand, creates the very possibilities that are defined out of existence by our belief in facts.
One great question would be, “what else is possible?” This one question can open up possibilities all of which exist outside of our consensually defined reality. How far could we go with this? What if the sky were not even the limit?
One soccer mom, for example, watching the rain pour down on the afternoon when her son faced a championship play-off game, thought that watching boys slide around in a sea of mud didn’t sound like much fun for either players or spectators. She asked what it would take for the skies to clear over San Francisco’s Kezar Stadium between 4:00 and 5:30, when the game was scheduled to be played. The thick gray clouds continued to dump rain on the rest of the city of San Francisco on that day—but the clouds above Kezar Stadium lightened up. The deluge settled in again at 5:30 as the boys were heading home after their victory lap.
What if by asking questions such as these we could use scientific principles to invite magic into our lives on a regular basis? What might that look like? Would considering that it might be a possibility even if we don’t know how, and asking questions about what might be possible allow us to notice it when it occurs?
A group of people attending seminars offered by Access Consciousness regularly travel to attend seminars and encounter the seemingly unavoidable episodes of air turbulence. Instead of grinning and bearing it, however, they ask what it would take to change it. By expanding their awareness out around the plane for 600 miles in all directions, they can with ease ask the air to smooth out so the flight becomes more comfortable. Other than comments on how smooth the flight was, no one seems to notice the change from bumpy to smooth. Is it because the person asking the air to change haven’t actually done this, or because in the minds of all their fellow passengers, such magic just isn’t possible so it becomes invisible to those who do not consider it could exist?
Gary Douglas, the developer of Access Consciousness, is now teaching people to do magic, which is possible, he maintains, through communication with the molecules of substances. According to Douglas, all molecules have consciousness, and by communicating with them everyone who is interested can easily achieve what would otherwise look like magic.
Douglas calls the technique de-molecular manifestation and molecular de-manifestation (DMMD for short). Both are accomplished by “talking” to the molecules and asking them to change. De-molecular manifestation invites the molecules to become what they have not been, so that something which did not exist comes into existence. Molecular de-manifestation invites the molecules creating something that is not desired, to disappear and become something else.
Douglas has demonstrated this in simple social situations, such as while sharing a rather harsh tasting bottle of wine. He can hold his hand over the bottle for 5 minutes, and the difference in the wine is noticeable to all who drink it. Furthermore, when he asks the wine to become exactly what each body desires for its own taste and satisfaction, the glasses of wine which came from the very same bottle acquire different tastes, according to each person drinking it. All of these can be noticed by anyone witnessing this who is willing to sample the wine in question.
Far from being a unique talent available only to Douglas, this ability to de-molecularly manifest and molecularly de-manifest is something that can easily be taught. It is so simple that a child can do it—and they are often better and faster at it than adults, simply because their beliefs that “it can’t be done” are less set in stone than their parents’.
Glenna Rice, a physical therapist practicing in San Rafael, CA, and Julie Tuton, a San Francisco artist, have taught this method to groups of children at the recent Green Expo in San Francisco. Rice and Tuton then demonstrated the changes in water using pH strips, which showed that the water they were working on changed in ways that could be measured “objectively” as well as tasted by everyone in the class.
What might be the usefulness of this method? What would happen if it were applied to an environmental challenge, such as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, that 30 foot deep continent of trash floating in the Pacific Ocean? Ocean 300 is a project that’s interested in finding out what might be possible.
The group plans to take a ship to the vicinity of the Garbage Patch with 300 people who have been practicing De-Molecular Manifestation and Molecular De-Manifestation to see what could happen to this ugly mass that threatens the entire ecosystem of our oceans.
Douglas is quick to note that he is not vested in the outcome and does not know what will happen. Asking a question with a pre-determined outcome is not really a question, he points out, but rather, a statement with a question mark at the end of it.
Applying the principles of DMMD might turn the patch of plastic into oil, which could then be harvested and used; it might cause it to turn into something that could sink harmlessly to the bottom of the ocean; or the outcome might be something we cannot even anticipate and are unable to have an awareness of until we make the choice to change it. What else is possible? What magic are you, that you have never asked yourself to be?
More information about Access Consciousness, Gary Douglas, and DMMD can be found at www.accessconsciousness.com. The website for the Ocean300 project is www.ocean300.org. Access Consciousness facilitators world wide teach free classes in De-molecular Manifestation and Molecular De-manifestation. These processes are also included in the Foundation and Level 1 classes.