It is not that the new paradigm is the new science and can be proven to reconcile the two: it may and it may not. The issue is another. The new paradigm is consistent within the context of the new cosmology. Once again we are confronted with a complete system, a whole corpus of knowledge. Within that the paradigm holds and makes sense.

It is like the Mother’s chamber: it too describes a complete system and each part explains the others; they support each other. This is the nature of a consciousness of Unity, out of which such elements arise or evolve. In this sense we could say that each individual who has attained such a state of awareness could not do otherwise: the field of his or her consciousness would always produce whole systems in any area upon which the gaze is turned.

The saga of the Inner Chamber is meant to provide an example of just such a development. Therefore the Mother could declare that the architects’ changes ‘make no sense’. They could never understand what she meant. It would be a foreign tongue because they had no barometer or poise/axial alignment that would put the experience ‘in its rightful place’ – i.e. ‘make sense’.

The two taken together – the Mother’s vision and the architects’ changes – describe the dilemma of our world and the reason why science is caught between a rock and a hard place: it cannot reconcile the small and the vast. That is, the unity factor is missing – the only basis on which to build a Theory of Everything (TOE).

My paradigm is that TOE within the new way universe. It answers the questions left unreconciled by unity: ‘It could tell us where the laws of nature come from, and whether the cosmos is built on uncertainty or whether it is fundamentally deterministic, with every element linked to a cause’. (from Will quantum mechanics swallow Relativity, Corey S. Powell, 29.10.2015).

My sense is that the entire question is wrongly formulated so no answers will ever come to these researchers (Craig Hogan and Lee Smolin, whose work is discussed in the article by Powell). Finally he sums up thusly: ‘And our current way of thinking about quantum mechanics is simply a complete failure when you try to think about cosmology or the whole universe. We don’t even know what time is. Both Hogan and Smolin endorse this sentiment, although they disagree about what to do in response. Carroll favours a bottom-up explanation in which time emerges from small-scale quantum reactions, but declares himself “entirely agnostic” about Smolin’s competing suggestion that time is more universal and fundamental. In the case of time, then, the jury is still out.’ (ibid)

He continues: ‘Although precedence can play out at the atomic scale, its influences would be system-wide, cosmic. It ties back to Smolin’s idea that small-scale, reductionist thinking seems like the wrong way to solve big puzzles. Getting the two classes of physics theories to work together, though important, is not enough, either. What he wants to know – what we all want to know – is why the universe is the way it is? Why does time move forward and not backward? How did we end up here, with these laws and this universe, not some others?

The present lack of any meaningful answer to those questions reveals that “there is something deeply wrong with our understanding of quantum field theory” Smolin says. Like Hogan, he is less concerned about the outcome of any one experiment than he is with the larger program of seeking fundamental truths. For Smolin that means being able to tell a complete, coherent story about the universe…’(ibid).

The point is clear: the new paradigm answers these questions – like why time moves forward: sequential extension after the 0/1 reversal to horizontal direction, after the triadic compaction which when crossing that threshold becomes gravity in our universe, the stable constant of our world. But the seeker must study the entire New Way if he or she is to understand this work. One has to come to terms with Transcendence, Cosmic and Individual principles as the foundation of human existence (the compacted triads). In other words, at the end of the labour lies the prize of a consciousness of unity, applicable in all directions – the veritable Theory of Everything precisely because what is perceived in such a consciousness of Unity will always be able to answer everything. The answers may appear different or unrelated but the sage knows the poise of consciousness whence the vision arises: and that knits it all together seamlessly, without paradoxes, without irreconcilables.

So simple, really.