My problem is that there is no ontological difference between statics and dynamics. The assumption that there is such a difference yields problems in physics (Einsteinian relativity).
Time is simply a dimension of spatial reality along which a subjective observer moves.
Time is inherently linked to subjectivity this way. It is an illusion given rise to by one's subjective movement through space. The fact that we travel along the dimension of time makes it seem special to us. In reality, it is a spatial dimension like any other.
Oh, right. The fact we call it a dimension also emerges from subjectivity. It is established as a dimension so one has a reference point. Other spatial dimensions are then established in relation to this temporal dimension and aren't exempt from scrutiny either, but to consider them at least a part of the world we represents doesn't yield nearly as many problems.
Having established what time really is: the succession of states of one's subjectivity, I have solved the problem (old news, I have been using these definitions for years) of what the Dynamic functions should really be called: phenomenological. They concern the study of appearances and impressions. They are the subjective material from which our representations of the world are built up. This conclusion is also supported by the easy at which they can be used to create an interpretation of Accepting/Creating and Limiting/Empowering with.