Space and time are conditions of experience and have no reality beyond that, they are internal parameters of the experiencing mechanism and do not reveal anything about the meaning or essence of that Experience. This was pretty much the Kantian position, and that of Bradleyan Idealism, and in a different form it seems to be something like the position of modern physics. We can adopt it as the first step in a critique of separation; in appearance a relation between two entities has a lesser degree of reality than the entities themselves, being added on to them, while in reality it is the other way around: what we call the relation is what is real and the reality of the supposed entities is exhausted by their role in making that relation appear. Relation is thus not relation, since there are no relata, but pure significance, outside of time. The arguments for or against such a position are of less interest than the way it helps to point out those aspects of experience which call forth the concepts of space and time, in particular the odd way in which we seem to be both inside and outside of these. If the observation that 'you cannot step into the same river twice' expresses a central realisation about time, then we must note the stepping into, the step taken from presumably dry land. All of this to now apply to experience in time as self-realisation, self-actualisation, or what has been called soul-making, which includes suffering and spiritual growth. This is what it is precisely because you cannot stand outside of it all, there is no dry land, every power you have and can call upon is fully mobilised, every residue is consumed. It is your entire understanding which moves in a dimension that you cannot grasp in any other way. And this is why the creative productions thrown off in this movement are irreducible, why they cannot be reached, or be imagined to be reached by any other path. It is the soul as living time, its significance being that it has no significance but is only significance.