yeah, i can see how you may have construed my words that way, although it wasn't my intent to leave you with that impression. getting the jist of an idea across using words seems to always leave room for an interpretation not intended, especially if that idea is an abstract concept perhaps newly formed in one's own mind. there is never a duplication of concept, anyway, as the receiving party will colour the communication with their own biases based on their experience.
yes, much more is known of the mechanics of the functioning of our universe now than at any time in our civilization's past. remember how newton proved the laws of gravity? it wasn't until einstein that it was seen by science that with the addition of 'laws' of relativity that newton's laws came to be seen as somewhat lacking in axiomatic status. but using newton's laws we got to the moon, anyway.
darwin was said in his time to have proven gradual natural selection as the motivating factor behind evolution, and although this is now seen by today's most progressive researchers into the nature of dna to not be correct, darwin left us with great insight into such things as mutative adaptation to environment.
in more recent times, we have had profound insight into the nature of matter and energy with the emergence of such things as atomic particle physics and the proof that matter is composed of atoms, which were said by mainstream science to be made up of energetic particles.
now the particle model of the atom is beginning to give way to a new understanding of an atom being a function of 'etheric' or toroidal wave interference patterns, (pardon my limited grasp:d) but from our previous understanding we obtained nuclear energy, electron microscopes and mri technology.
gravity has long been proven to be an attractive force, whereas it seems now that rather it may be a function of etheric energy 'pushing', let's say for example, a body onto the surface of a planet as it rushes in to sustain the beingness of the planet.
one plus one equalling two on one level is provable, and is a functionally usable equation, although, as we are being taught, still an illusion, as there is in reality only one. in the context of our 3d experience of illusary separation, i feel, the advancement of science is indispensible to our civilization and our quality of life.
one must deal in and move through the illusion to gain that which is closer to not being illusion.
the great work of those who endeavor to prove to us that there is only one contiguous field of consciousness, only one great 'i am', is, i feel, the most important work done ever in human history, and could only be being done by standing on the shoulders of those great thinkers, ideas, concepts and working proofs that have gone before.
they haved moved through and worked within the great illusion and continue to do so, in the undying hope that the largest possible percentage of mankind will realize the road that leads, ultimately, out of the illusion and back to the one reality.
i believe any such 'proof', while acting only as a direction-pointing signpost, has the potential to tip the scales towards a galvanizing of the bulk of humanity towards a true, love based unity of purpose and a mainstream awareness of our mutual oneness, creating a new ruling paradigm which, as you say, makes it easier for yet others to get on board. perhaps this is the hope and vision of david wilcock?
another paradox, perhaps, is that that which could in 3d be only the illusion of proof is that which is necessary to awaken slumbering humanity and set our foot more firmly on the road out of our illusary environment.
-and, please remember, these are only my thoughts, not meant to be construed as those which i believe anyone should take to be true.
-mark
Bookmarks