Again, I agree with what you wrote. I am still amazed that your correspondence is civil and remains with the idea instead of going the way of derision. I guess I'm just not used to this sort of exchange online.

You wrote: "Enlightened individuals might anticipate such variation because of the limited and relatively misleading nature of our cognitive tools." I contend that enlightenment is an idea and nothing more. I have written much about this, but in brief it's my conclusion that enlightenment is no more than a concept that, upon inspection, turns out to be an impossibility: The egoic self is a construct created out of thoughts, memories, and ideas that form an identity. When these are removed then there is no egoic self. Therefore, the egoic self can never be enlightened. After this self is removed from the equation, the totality of consciousness remains, which is the movement and contents of life or existence — everythingness, if you will. Since this is already totality it cannot become anything, including enlightened. And beneath all of this is the nothingness, capacity, or void, which is without form or existence and therefore cannot be enlightened. Those claiming to be enlightened are merely making a proclamation of the egoic self.

A common introspective question to ask oneself is: Who is it who claims to be enlightened or anything else?

Considering the above, I feel that enlightenment is sort of an abstract place holder, a word that suggests a certain kind of knowingness. But it falls apart as a concept as soon as one begins to look closely at it. Like the self, it is but a mirage.

You asked, "Yet is all such tool-use or philosophical contemplation mere playing with shadows on the cave wall? Are technoscientific and social forms of progress mere illusions or shadows?" And my answer is yes to both questions. This gets into a much deeper and more involved conversation that wrestles with the idea of what reality is.

Also, I appreciate what you wrote at the outset of your comment regarding a choice to delve into the philosophical interpretation of things. However, I still contend that there is no way to enter into the realization through this method and I have given analogies for the reason. Still, there is a place for philosophy; I think it's a healthy pursuit with many practical applications. After all, we are living in this world and the more we understand about it and its creatures the more fulfilling, interesting, helpful, and creative our experience can be.

I feel that far too much consideration is placed upon the concept of enlightenment and the way that it is brought into the realm of mysticism or mystery. It seems clear to me why this is so, especially if you read the comments and articles of followers of Hinduism and Buddhism. These people are given to magnification of wonder and awe for those who have some special insight into reality. They, the former, have imbued gurus with special powers and superiority so that a long tradition of unwarranted worship of gurus has saturated the consciousness of followers and acolytes. If you want a taste of this, just read the comments below one of the videos of Osho, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, and others. It's nothing less than sycophantic. And now, in the West, we have a cavalcade of New Age gurus receiving the same sort of adulation and adoration.