he number one problem from my point of view is that my only frame of reference is our, today's understanding of the physics of the material universe. I cannot for the sake of credibility go beyond those boundaries.
However there is the possibility that the physically unknown or little known duality that you speak of may manifest itself, or maybe it would be more appropriate to say, leave a trace or be reflected, even partially in our current understanding of these matters.
Fortunately, by this point in my process I have evolved a set of quality cross-cultural resources by which to verify statements and references. Particularly helpful are the way that the Egyptian glyphs spell out the intended meanings of words. Also, an attribute of the archaic cosmology is that it did not use words casually - key words are very carefully chosen. Likewise, the tradition makes no assumptions about which metaphor for meaning a modern-day audience would "get". So all of the most important information is framed in multiple ways. In the end, its possible to make well-supported statements about the nature of key concepts, both from the material and non-material perspectives. This conforms with conventions that are used by modern popularizers of astrophysics, such as Steven Hawking, Brian Green, and Michio Kaku, who will sometimes express an idea from the perspective of "God's eyes".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07-Apr-16 22:35 by Laird Scranton.