While a bit limiting, I think Michael is on the right track. Much of our knowledge is acquired from others. It takes a great deal of skepticism to sort that which is yours from that which is accepted as "truth". The missing factor is the influence of being an individual unconstrained by social patterns, accepted norms and structured teaching. There is the road less travelled and also the option of using no road at all.

I disagree with is the "unique to you" part. There is very little in the way of human thought that is unique. Chances of a particular meaning being unique: One in about 6.5 billion. Not good odds. Considering phenomena like zeitgeist the odds are much smaller - there is more similarity than difference in the meanings we attach to things.

Meaning as rationalization is, at best, a small subset of over all experience. We can assume that all of us have similar limitations in our ability to percieve. Those limitations tend to frame our interpretation of that experience and lead to similar responses. In most instances the experience-meaning link is unimportant, even when personal. A close call with a serving of brocolli may have meaning to an individual (they like or dislike it) but is of little consequence in spiritual/intellectual/emotional growth. The crux of the problem is that "meaning" has been fabricated, homogenized, de-personalized and accepted by the majority of the humans on this earth and the "experience" is more often than not vicarious and, at best, is filtered by that which is accepted, politically correct, considered "normal" or has been fashioned by their particular conduit to a higher being.


"Experience itself is limited to the ego of the known."

I'm not sure how to interpret this statement. I guess I have not encountered a known with an ego as a point of comparison. The over all concept does not seem correct to me however. We know next to nothing when we enter this world and if the statement is correct we would have the same knowledge now as we did then - there would be no opportunity to gain experience if it was limited by the knowledge we could gain from experience. I think, rather, that experience happens and it is only in our interpretation of it that it becomes limited. So, the statement might be both true and false. The more experience we have, the less some of us are capable of experiencing - maybe we just become jaded. That some individuals become ossified does not mean that all individuals become incapable of looking at the world in new ways.

The initial question about the relationship between space-time and static/dynamic enlightenment is really one of perception. Again, our perception is limited by our senses, at least while we are in a conscious state and insist on a consistent reality. This is not true of everyone and some routinely step into the unknown - the most common example is the artist - and others are not limited by constructs that pass for reality.

The issue is not really whether people opt for a static or dynamic approach to philosophy/enlightenment but what effect that has on the world. For those who are dynamic the static folks are messing things up pretty good and that is a problem. Being static cannot be blamed for that. Having a bad god might - and by that I mean that it might not be so messed up if the values the "statics" chose was less destructive and more in tune with natural systems. I think the Jane's beliefs are pretty static but they do little harm.

Out of 6.5 billion people, how many do you figure have the least interest in the "unknown", enlightenment and/or reaching a higher state of being? This is pretty critical because if we expect enlightenment to be a cure for the worlds ills we are all dead meat. It is probably more practical to design a primrose path that is more earth freindly. It is likely that a path utterly static and probably false would be more easily accepted than the discipline involved in becoming dynamic.

I think one step that should be considered is to step away from spinning profun ditties and get more into the Tao of beer and NFL football.


Zifra