385

When psychologists first studied the connection between religion and intelligence, in the 1920s and 30s, they came to the conclusion that atheists were more intelligent, on average, than their religious counterparts. But further research showed a murkier picture, and by the 1970s the general conclusion was that there was no difference between atheists and the religious.

More recent studies have started to shove opinion back. They seem to be showing that there is, after all, a difference—albeit with some caveats and nuances. Here's a couple of recent ones.

Miron Zuckerman, at the University of Rochester in New York, along with colleagues has conducted a meta-analysis of all the previously-published studies. A meta-analysis is a statistical tool used to pool together different studies, so that you can see the overall picture.

Altogether, Zuckerman dug up 63 studies, dating back to the 1920s. He found that, although there was a lot of variation, there was clear evidence that "the higher a person's intelligence, the lower the person scored on the religiosity measures."

Intelligence is not specific. It is a measurement of how well one is capable of differentiating between different information and recognizing different patterns, from a clinical standpoint, once you remove all the subjective supposition concerning the definition of the term. In this way, intelligence can be applied to nearly all cognitive functions involving logic, reason, comprehension, or active memory. Obscuring the definition of intelligence wit your own self-made mumbo-jumbo is just equivocation in this instance, and will not help us to try to understand this better.

There are many more ideological atheists in the world now than even just 50 years ago. Mostly fueled by a negative reaction of society to Christian and Muslim fundamentalism. For which they often lump all religions into a single category without any kind of distinction—and still claim they are "smart atheists" when doing so.

All people like Dawkins done that to keep the war raging between stupid theists and their stupid atheist counterparts. That is how they make a living. That is how the priests he condemns makes their living. Neither group is particularly smart. And as a religious person myself, I have yet to come across at ground level either a theist or an atheist who claimed to be smart who was capable of actually demonstrating that in any effective way. Thinking is not their strong suit. If it were, they wouldn't be ideologues.

I don't think Dawkins is a particular smart man either. I think he is very knowledgeable and a relatively descent writer, but he still uses all the same old logical fallacies that any other idiot uses. And most of his debates just amounts to him brow-beating his opponents with facts about the church in the past, and faulty generalizations about the minority, but most vocal and intolerant of modern Christian groups.

The fundamentalists only make up about 12% of Abrahamic religions world wide (with there being no comparison in Eastern Dharmic religions). But Dawkins, "smart atheist" that he is, treats this as the majority threat. But then, this is exactly what you would expect from a propagandist, which is exactly what he is.

Makes no sense to criticize Dawkins on the basis of being what he intends to be. He is not propagandist by accident, he is one on purpose. And religious people getting all mad about the ignorance he preaches is just what he expects and hopes will happen. Because it is the ire of the Christians that further fuel his popularity. It impresses the less intelligent atheists and adds to his authority among his flock.

Neither the theists nor the atheists can help but continue to be manipulated by these kinds of people on both sides of the divide. Because as I said, they don't really think for themselves. They just follow the voices of the most vocal leaders of their communities. Lemmings chasing after other little lemming asses until they all leap off the cliff together.

384

Unbelievably paradoxical that absolutely every form of sexual expression imaginable is 100% permissible because sex is fine but at the time it is so dangerous, that while you're dancing with someone at the club you have to ask them 2 or 3 times if it's okay for you to continue.

Both of those things can't be true. And what's happening next like on the MeToo movement for example and the affirmative consent, is the old sexual taboos are reasserting themselves. The idea that we can remove emotional and psychological intimacy from sex turned out to be a backlash, like "I feel used, I feel manipulated." Because one of the things that are happening on the radical end of the anti-sexual-abuse movement is the idea that "If you have intercourse with someone and then you regret it the next day, that is evidence that it wasn't consensual." It is in the sense of the evidence that it wasn't consensual because it is evidence that you didn't bloody well think it through. 

The one-million question is: so what constitutes consent? You fuck them the other night with consent, but annulled by the new fact that 3 days later you regret it? You want both ways. You want to be able to do whatever you want with whoever you want whenever you want with no consequences and you want there never to be any trouble about consent. What the hell?! No, that's not going to happen. 

I don't think sex works very well outside of committed relationships. There's a strong proclivity across cultures for the social enforcement of long-term monogamy, and there's reason for that. I think we deviate from that at our peril. And if you want to deviate from that there are all sorts of reasons to do it, I can understand why people are interested in adventure and all of that, but you only really get to try out five people in your life, you have to make a decision pretty damn quick, like you know between the age of 20 and 30 there's a lot of time to get your shit together, and long-term mate is usually one of them. Make a good decision to pick one and commit. 

It is so interesting that all of the sexual taboo reconstruction is coming from the radical left. It's not what I'd expect at all. I'd think it'd be the damn right-wing religious complaining about sexual immorality. Nope, it's the lefties. You have to have signed consent before making any physical move. Really? Who thought that up? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Do you know how awkward that would be? You are supposed to be able to do a little bit of nonverbal reading. I mean that's part of romance. Do you ever see a movie where two people who are dating exchange consent notes? It's going to take us a long time to sort this out, but hopefully, we can do it in a serious manner and it won't be merely a matter of mobbing those who seem to have made an error.

383

 Neuroscience tells us that we have two functional brains. The left hemisphere (the seat of our analytical reasoning) and the right hemisphere (the seat of our contextual intuition).

According to some measurements, both hemispheres are capable of actually "thinking" independently of each other. So we essentially have two brains. The left hemisphere which takes care of anywhere between 75-90% of our daily tasks. Including me typing a blog posts here. And the right brain which sort of adds the flavor and personality to who we are. You can say that the left brain is the creative artist, and the right brain is its inspiration in the form of a muse.

But it seems there is no real scientific consensus as yet on how they may actually do that. But let's hypothesize that they do.

Here is the thing... According to theory, the left brain doesn't know it has a muse. Consciously, while the right brain is fully aware of the fact that there is another brain present, the left brain doesn't have a clue about the right brain existence. It's as if the right brain was a ghost inhabiting the same house as the left brain, whispering spiritual affirmations and denouncements into the ear of the left brain. The left brain has no idea where they come from. So a true muse, in the classical, spiritual sense of the word.

So here is the proposition:

If it is possible for the right brain to be viewing and influencing the left brain's activity without the left brain knowing, isn't it possible that a third brain is doing the same to both the right and left brain? Therefore, we have four premises in play in this proposition:

1] There is a third brain.

2] The third brain knows about the right and left brain but they do not know about the third brain.

Now, before I get to [3] and [4], I have to address a challenge to this theory. The reason why we know of the right and left brain's independent activity is that we can see it in MRI brain scans. But we have never observed a third brain. Or have we?

The patterns of active thought peak under brain scan when we are actively carrying out a task. For example, I start calling you a bunch of assholes, and my limbic system, my temporal lobe, my hippocampus, and my right frontal lobe kick into gear. A symbolic rainbow coalition on the brain scan monitor. Otherwise, they are quiet. But that silence doesn't mean I have stopped thinking you are as asshole. It means that I am not thinking about it that hard anymore. That my cognition is being passive and not as reactive as when I first thought about you being an asshole.

What this tells us is that there are times when the non-reactive brain is just sitting still and watching. Waiting for something to happen. It is like when we sleep. Contrary to popular belief, the brain doesn't actually slow down or stop when we sleep. What stops is the interconnectivity between the different areas of the brain. The different regions stop talking to and reacting to one another. So somewhere in that median fuzzy logic of mental activity could be a hypothetical third brain, the Voyeur, which gets off on watching rather than actually participating. You can even call it the "perverse brain."

And if that brain doesn't like to interact, how do we know it's there? So we arrive at the next two premises:

3] The third brain only watches, and doesn't influence.

4] As a non-reactive brain, we can't tell the difference between it and the normal background noise of our thoughts.

So, here is the really pertinent question... What if you—that is, your true, core, consciousness—is this Voyeur brain, not the right or left brain? And as the Voyeur brain, what if you are sitting there in your head, watching the activity of the right and left brain; and since you are not self-aware because you are not reactive like the right and left brain, have no idea that you are just watching the right and left brain carry out tasks, thinking that they are you? When the fact is, they are just mechanisms that you are viewing much like a person viewing a stage play.

Only, in this case, that person has what amounts to a severe dissociative disorder and believes themselves to be the actors on the stage and not the audience. That proverbial Self being just a lump of brain matter with no reason, intuition, emotion, or purpose beyond voyeurism and make-believe.

You may think: Well, even if the Voyeur brain exists, that doesn't mean you aren't also the right and left brain. So everything is still the same. And that would be true. Except for things like emotional attachments, ego, free will, self-correction, cognitive adaptation, and knowledge. All of these rely on the belief that when you make a conscious choice, that choice comes from what is primarily YOU, and not the part of you that is the ant farm being observed by the real you.

382

"It is a scientifically proven fact that highly intelligent people are prone to (clinical) depression, neuroticism, and anxiety disorders." 

I mean, I'm not against science here, but since a more intelligent person would make better choices on the average by definition, and better choices lead to a better life, then I would expect to believe that more intelligent persons would suffer less from depression and anxiety rather than more as a better life would be less stressful. 

No, intelligence does not make depression. They are related. They do not change each other directly. Personally, I felt more depressed over matters I had with no solution. Solving the problem relieves the anxiety. We can be smarter after the experience than during the experience. No solution is the motivation to get smarter. Ultimately the journey's end is greater than any means because then you know the solution works.

Depression is not an indication of superior intelligence. People who make such claims are typically only rationalizing their compulsion to go on clinging to their own attachments and self-destructive behavior. Although pain is one of life's greatest teachers. The man of intelligence is neither averse to pain nor does he go on clinging to painful psychological memories which may perpetuate/cause him unnecessary suffering. 

What I've found extremely annoying is so many superficial people donning a *depressed look* to appear more intelligent. They make the world think depression is not real and all depressed people are attention-seeking posers.

The concepts of happiness and unhappiness only perturb the mind whenever we carry a specific idea about *how* to live. The desire for happiness creates the *how to live*. Desire needs the future to exist. What does that mean? It means that you cannot desire from the now. A bridge is needed from here to there; from the present to the future. Desire is that bridge. The bridge is only a projection of the mind. The bridge does not exist in reality. In order to desire anything, you have to project yourself into the future. And the future doesn't exist.

The future has never existed. By the time the future arrives, it is already the present. Hence, the feelings of disappointment and despair (unhappiness) that you ultimately feel whenever things don't go the way that you had planned. So depression is *not* a matter of intelligence. It is simply a failure to recognize that time is an illusion. And if you are too caught by your desires you will go on finding excuses to protect your illness.

You might not depressed. Well at least not a chemical-clinically-problem since the thoughts you spin around in your mind are part of the problem. We are brought up to live in a dream, a fairy tale, and the way out of it is to observe and reveal the lies in our own minds.

Intelligent people may be more sensitive, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are more susceptible to depression; it just means they feel more deeply than someone of lesser intelligence. In any case, we all suffer under the same weight.

"How is depression simply a failure to recognize that time is an illusion? Even after realizing that oh so mystical metaphysics, many, many people will STILL struggle at least on occasion with depression?"

Of course. It is at most a conscious effort. Some days I lie around in the bed and stare at the wall I'm so depressed. I could resist this uncomfortable feeling and perpetuate my suffering for several days, but because I consciously choose not to resist the suffering and remind myself that the feeling will pass, the feelings of depression are usually gone by the next day.

There are of course those life circumstances that cause us to suffer for more than 'twenty-four' hours. For example, I lost my mom back in 2015. It took me a good six or five months to pass through the grieving process. I am still grieving for months after of course, but I am referring to those initial ups and downs that consume the better part of your day. But even then I reminded myself that this too shall pass. I just wasn't foolish enough to expect the suffering to go away after just a few days. No, I believe we have to go totally into the grieving process in order to grieve properly. And of course, everyone grieves differently.

There are no hard rules about it. It takes as long as it takes. But you know I'm not gonna feel guilty if I find something to smile about two days after my mom has died. No, I believe that grief and praise are inextricably linked. And our loved ones who are gone would want us to cut up and laugh just as we always did.

So yeah I'm not advocating for any permanent state of bliss in this matter. I do believe it is possible to be in a permanent state of bliss, but I'm definitely not there yet. Being in a constant state of bliss would bore me. Pain is what motivates me sometimes. Lack of continuity is why people don't like the idea of constant bliss. But there is also a kind of relief when knowing life does go wrong.

We all have our own coping mechanisms. One way of coping with depression is learning to be more present. One way to do that is to accept that this too shall pass. Just like happiness, unhappiness is fleeting. Expecting something which is fleeting to go on lasting without end causes suffering. Deluding yourself into believing that you know anything about the future causes suffering. No one can tell anything about the future. We make plans and God laughs. Accepting that control is an illusion allows you to refrain from engaging in the infinite complexities of self-definition and misidentification.

Don't forget there's emotional intelligence too. Thinking helps me see a bigger picture, so to not dwell on one spot. But I suspect when I manage to rise above intellectually, my EQ will take a hit to make room for all the rational thinking, which may further contribute to feelings of despair and alienation in the long run. It is the infinite nature of a thought that causes problems, the ability to discern the problem of one that has a solution and one that does not, that drives the intelligent people to anxiety, it is overwhelming but one can grow out of it. 

Intellectuals are more inclined towards mental disorders, but because they are so intelligent they tend not to be too badly affected by them and just get on with their lives. The average human on the other hand...

381

Everyone has their interpretation of being an apatheist. Their assumption of God, of doubts, questions, and their construction of why they reject some part of God. But when you can 100% understand everything about God, then it is definitely not a God. Do you see the problem here?

God, by its definition, is above objective proof. If I'm an atheist, even if somebody shows me objectively that He can raise the dead, fly like Superman, or turn water into wine, I still wouldn't believe.

If He's benevolent and helps save billions of people, would that be proof enough? If He has the unlimited ability and can do anything, would that prove His omnipotence? If He knows everything and can answer any question we put to him.

Sure, He can be benevolent and save the whole universe from any further suffering, He can answer all the questions and exhibit all the godlike abilities, I agree with all of that, I just think that we people could never confirm that He's a God nonetheless. We aren't able to visit every corner of the universe to confirm that there indeed isn't any suffering anymore—not to mention we have to formulate a universal agreement about suffering, that what is the final definition of suffering first. We can ask God only the questions for which we already know the answer. We can ask God to grant us all the ability to fly, but, as I said, maybe God can do this because He's very powerful and He can trick us into thinking that he's a God, but maybe that's only a small fraction of what a real God could do.

One would have to be omni-aware to experience the true evidence of omnipotence godship. I just can't imagine anything that would be an ultimate proof of God's existence. If we are to prove beyond any doubt that He's a God, He would have to demonstrate this by doing everything there is to be done and answering all the questions there are to be answered. But this would take an eternity, there would always be another thing to be done, and another question to be answered. God is purposely not detected or discoverable by the efforts of flawed fallen human intellect. That would mean He would be confined to intellectuals alone. Not a good godlike to rally to.

There is no evidence that is so compelling and obvious that anyone would be convinced. Atheists do not have that and neither do theists. Anyone who thinks they do have ventured into almost magical thinking. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the true proof of God's existence is beyond the capacities of humankind. We are too limited to confirm that He/She/It really is a God. I think the only way for a God to prove that He's a God, is to turn somebody else into God. This way the person (who is now a God) would get the ability (and equality) to confirm the successful demo of the original God. I would probably have to become a God myself. 

The things is, you can't eradicate anything with even the most obvious truths. If that was the case then there would be no flat earthers. Humans can raise their skepticism to irrational levels and suppress the truth and that is why no amount or quality of evidence would eliminate unbelief. Atheism wouldn't suddenly disappear with the arrival of the elusive evidence. Instead, there'd be holdouts saying, "Surely, this is something else." You, we, I, have only our personal spiritual experiences which are of no value to others.

When I was a fundamentalist atheist, I realized I was wrong. When I was a fundamentalist Muslim, I realized I was wrong. When I was a liberal Muslim, I realized I was wrong. When I realized I don't know much of anything, that may be the first time I was actually right.

380

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about what is after death. About where I'm gonna go. And I would prefer if it's utter and total nothingness, like a moment you are here and the next moment you are just a concept inside the minds of people who knew you. 

I was (and am from time to time) is often in a very similar place like this. I came to a point where I resented my own existence and found myself analyzing everything to such a fault that I didn't see any point in doing some of the smallest tasks in life. Then I came to realize that life was about feeling, not thinking. I sought to live authentically and quiet my mind. Since I couldn't see any point in anything, I decided to walk blindly and remind myself that life is meant to be lived despite any rationalization or sense of futility I may feel. It's a hard way still, but I've managed to surprise myself and feel lighter somewhat so I know I'm on the right path, as wavy and dark as it may seem at times. This was kind of vomited out and not well articulated. I know this may seem like low-level common sense or even absurdity, I know, but I felt like sharing, hope it helps.

Remember that humans are very young in an evolutionary sense and our conscious minds are a thin wrapper around mostly reptilian brains. We are still evolving as a species, and regression is common. If you think about what a miracle consciousness, empathy, and compassion are and how much awareness has developed just in the recent past, and that we will continue to develop in leaps and starts in the future, that might help you cope with human shortcomings now. We’re all works in progress.

I hate life not because of what happens to me, I want to die precisely because of the things that are outside; everything that happens in the world, or what happens to the people closest to me, let alone loved ones like family. Like many people out there, I don't necessarily wanna die, it's just that I don't wanna live. At least not in this world, within the society and its constructs. I think about everything from basic principles, I try to make sense of the world around me. And the more I think like that, the more it inflicts pain upon me.

Breathe. Just breathe into the soothing darkness and allow it to pass. If there is something for me here, it will become visible in the silence. If it does not, I am then free to make something for myself. There is a unique and often terrifying madness in too much "why." And a priori knowledge of the world can be burdensome if you get stuck in that why. Breathe.

Sometimes I do sports as an escape. It takes my mind off existential stuff which could really make me think how absurd our lives here on earth are. Even the promise of eternal life that religion offers do not make sense anymore. Eternal life is the most absurd of all absurdity.

It will get better with time, life always does so just hang in there. And it gets easier faster if you make a choice to grow. Learn. Take notes. It got to the point that I spent most of my time rationalizing things to keep my sanity.

Nature wraps all that is good, pleasurable, and beautiful with pain and ugliness. The painful birth process of a loving mother just to give life to a beautiful baby who becomes the source of joy and fulfillment for the parents. A seed must fall down and be buried in the ground before it becomes a new seedling. The grapes are to be crushed before it becomes wine. And seeds to be ground before it becomes a bread that will nourish us. Pain and pleasure, beauty and ugliness, are polarities we experience the one.

Life touched on many points, each requiring long explanations. The short answer that might help me feel better is: statistics vs generalizations. Not all men do those things, not all religious people think those things, etc. Also, evil is a very unclear term, depends on perspectives, even for some people wearing a mini skirt is evil. There's plenty of goodness and wonderful things in people. Don't take your current views as final & written in stone. Life is full of everything, try to accept it, then try to improve something. Just by being a relatively good person, you contribute to humanity.

We are now entering a post-religious era and there is nothing here to satisfy our inherent need for meaning, purpose, and connection. Unfortunately, science is not up to the task. Not yet at least. We're a generation lost in space. Abandoning the illogical and stifling traditions of our forefathers with nothing to fill that void.

If the afterlife does not exist ... death, an eternal sleep without dreams or nightmares, sounds ok compared to the slave life we live in.

379

Morality always has been different for every culture. People are almost always prone to take offense to the moral customs of foreign cultures. The illusion of progress brings people to believe that we have reached an absolute peak in human thought that has never been excelled before. Every civilization in all history is guilty of this. But progress is not linear, if it even exists. What is progress anyway?

In ancient civilizations there were several practices considered morally good that we now would consider barbaric, but that is the same type of nationalism that people in those other cultures would feel if they knew of our own moral codes. In Ancient Greece, infanticide was considered the norm, and people commonly left unwanted babies outside of the temple to die. In the early Roman Republic, all men were allowed to kill their wife and children at any time regardless of reason. In Ancient Egypt, incest was encouraged as a sign of status. In Babylon, it was a requirement upon hitting puberty that all girls consent to have sex with any man who solicits her. Pedophilia and rape were condemned in some places and celebrated in others. These laws and many others might shock and disgust us, but they were considered moral at the time. But can we truly call these civilizations immoral, primitive, or ignorant? How do we know if our morals are any better? What is morality and what does it seek to achieve? We need to get a little deeper than the human nature argument if we are going to discuss morality. If it's just a feeling, then we cannot condemn anyone for breaching our own personal codes of morals. If this were the case we might as well ditch morality and just do what we want.

Outside of appeal to emotion, one common argument is that morality exists for the society more than the individual, to keep society thriving a long time. If this were true, then all of the ancient civilizations I named must have good codes of morals because they lasted hundreds if not thousands of years (in the case of Egypt) with these same laws. There is also the utilitarian argument of maximizing happiness, but we have to consider that Roman and Babylonian citizens were in all likelihood much happier than we are.

We must remember that the morals we have right now are descended from two sources, neither of which most of us currently hold in high esteem; our ancestor's culture and religion teaching. We must approach the subject as if we know nothing, and start again from scratch. Maybe we don't need morality. We might be taking this whole civilization thing a bit too seriously. Or morality could be serving a different purpose that we don't need to value as much. If morality exists, how can we justify ourselves to Rome, Egypt, Babylon, or Greece? How can we argue in support of our own morals without claiming cultural superiority? Why do we as a culture find murder, mutilation, misogyny, slavery, rape, incest, and pedophilia so repulsive while other cultures would laugh at us for thinking that? How can we justify our morals to anyone?

378

"That willingness to dive completely into the unknown is an act of a true seeker of truth."

The question would be: What if the unknown remains unknown, can we still call it the truth?

There is a famous thought experiment written by philosopher Frank Jackson called "Mary The Super-Scientist." It is meant to be a knowledge argument in regards to physicalism. If knowledge is physical, then wouldn't it have to interact with any phenomena before we could know that phenomena, as opposed to be mental and can be derived through non-physical means such as direct observation? The thought experiment goes like this:

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red," "blue," and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue." What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?

Ultimately, this question was answered by explaining that there are two truths. Unfortunately for the western philosophers, no one bothered to give the Buddhist philosopher, Nagarjuna, the second Buddha after Siddhartha Gautama, credit for this discovery. Making them look kind of stupid. But nonetheless, the doctrine of two truths is instrumental in explaining both experiment, and answering the question.

There are two truths. The first is the truth of experience. This is everything that you observe objectively or subjectively by which you can affirm that in terms of reality, it has no fault. If you drop a stone, and it hits the ground, you can say to a reasonable certainty that stones hitting the ground when you drop them, barring any unusual circumstances, is a truth of reality.

Then there is the truth that lies beyond what is known or knowable. That is the truth that is unknown and unknowable.

Mary has the first truth about color. But she doesn't have the second truth about color, because color is out of the scope of her experience. So will she be in possession of new knowledge when she finally sees color? Well, yes and no. She will have new knowledge in the form of experience, but that won't necessarily tell Mary anything more about how color works than what she already knows. In fact, it may even tell her less. Because just experiencing color doesn't tell you, in a reductively logical way, what is color. Just that it is a thing.

So using this information, what could we say about a person who lived in darkness all their lives, and never saw light. Like a blind man. Does this mean he cannot define darkness? Does this mean that he cannot conceive of light? Like, have you ever been dead? So not experiencing death means you can't understand life for what it is? Saying someone else experience death, or even light, and told you about it, doesn't really deliver knowledge, does it? Other than knowledge of the other person (objective) rather than their perception (subjective).

Blind people have actually defined their darkness before. The difference being that they did not define it in relation to light. They defined it in relation to their own experience. As their existence. As not-light, whatever light is suppose to be.

If you think about it, all humans do this, as well. No human has ever experienced absolute nothingness or non-existence. We don't even have a way to define it besides saying it's not existence. But we can still imagine it in a way. But this is only because we make use of other dualities we can model after. So while we may not be able to see light, we can still conceive of a thing called light. And understand darkness for what it is. A thing that is to us a singularity. It is not alone in being singularities. Though most of them are abstract.

What is God? How are we able to define and understand it if we cannot experience it? We certainly don't define it objectively. Just conceptually.

The funny thing about blind people and color blind people is that there exists some technologies that now allow people who have been blind from birth to see. Or color blind people to see color. In many of the videos, mostly children, their reaction to seeing for the first time is often surprising reserved. Their reaction is usually one of curiosity rather than shock.

And oddly enough, many color blind people can tell the difference between different colors, and even name them, never having actually experienced them before that moment. Because what we have become accustom to as color, they have become accustom to as shades of gray. More shades of gray than we ever notice. So for them, the experience of color can really be a little more underwhelming than we would expect.

In a more modern context of truth relativism in logic theory, we'd call the practical truths, relative truths and the greater truths absolute truths. Relative truth are the truths of the world as we can know them in terms of objective and subjective knowledge. Absolute truth is the truth of ontological abstraction. Like the truth of the form of a circle. Typically expressed only logically (mathematically), not materialistically.

Truth (satya) can be divided into two categories: What Nagarjuna usually teach as truth (samvrti), which is a practical kind of truth, and greater truth (paramartha), which is the truth that has greater affect on our existence. According to the two-truths doctrine, all truth ultimately doesn't matter because the one truth of reality .. that it has as its foundation a state of absolute emptiness that cannot be logically determined (shunyata); renders all truths we have to say about reality meaningless.

An often misunderstood term regarding Nagarjuna's understanding is the term "emptiness." This term does not imply a denial of the world / substratum nihilum. Rather it is an absence of svabhava or the essence of the self.

The Muslims had all similar to this in Sufism.