Let me first say that I know that I have some special powers to enable comprehension of this perception I call my reality. The reason I am sure these powers are special is, thus far, I have found no other examples of them. This is not to say they are by any means unique, but I have found no evidence of them. The best analogy I can conjure is as if I am the only one who can see red. No, let me create a new colour. I shall call it winoe. The only one who can see winoe is me, in my analogy. The rest can see all other colours, as do I, but I am the only one who can see winoe. Most would say, by that token, that winoe does not exist. Please leave that sentiment on hold. We can and will return to it. For now let us imagine winoe does exist I am faced with the same task a normal sighted person has explaining the colour red to the never sighted. Do blind people think those who claim they see colours are mad? No! Those who I have met accept they have senses limitation and that is the way it is. Their world is dysfunctional to the point it is unlikely that a blind person could survive a natural life without the assistance of the sighted. With correct assistance the blind can function very well. Yet the analogy was not concerned with function. It was not concerned whether colours existed or not. It did not question the attributes of a photon cell. It was concerned with resonance. What makes red, red? The Newtonians can concoct a complicated string of techno-babble pretending to rationalise the truth, but the answer is not to be found in scientific rationalisation.
Red is colour that personifies a particular resonant frequency; as do all colours. Red in particular, though, displays emotional resonance that is beyond symbolism even when symbolically used. It is the home of the preborn and becomes the preoccupation of all involved with flesh. ”I saw red” is the common expression for an outburst of irrational anger. This is not symbolic, although it might be, but something primordial. Some may agree. Others may disagree, but I can find some common ground when discussing colour red. What has been written, thus far, about the colour red is not abnormal or unacceptable. Some would buy the pitch completely. Others would select sentiment that matches their desired belief. Winoe is a different matter. There is no common ground. Some might yearn for some succinct explanation so they could rationalise and massage the new “beyond sight” colour into their belief system. Others would reject it outright. I wish to focus on these rejecters; debunkers, “as it were”. There are two types at each end of the spectrum. One is scholarly and appreciates their perception with a no nonsense approach to what is. What does not convert to perception does not exist. This is not a malicious denial of faith, but rather a secure appreciation of ego. The other debunker type constructs his or her tailored “God complex”. If the pitch fits, then belief permits it. Nevertheless a God complex must be all knowing and all experiencing. Therefore, a colour that is beyond knowledge, beyond experience defies the God complex. This must be rejected and outlawed.
There is generally much talk about belief and truth but no common ground. Truths are always selective. Many attribute their beliefs to one type of religion or another. Because one claims they are a Muslim, does that make them a Muslim? Comparing the colour analogy, even with the infinite number of varieties (shades and so on), red evokes the same emotional resonance whether we call it carmine, rose or even pink. Or rather, the emotional resonance triggered by red does not alter. Pink might encourage lighter sentiment, a gentler and more feminine approach, but the resonance is the same. Likewise, informed and educated Muslims buy into different aspects or components of the Qur’an. They observe Mohamed and his eternal wishes. Some are more aggressive. Others are less aggressive. Some are inclined to forgive and others are not. Those who make the effort to study the Qur’an will draw equal conclusion which are unavoidable. Whether viewed a virtuous or destructive, Mohamed’s message is determined to control the follower. A true Muslim’s mind belongs to Mohamed. There are many Muslims who would be better described as envoys of Arab nationalism. They have no common belief with Mohamed and merely manipulate their Arab status to their best advantage or in a vain attempt to become part of the in-group.
The same can be said and more so for their Christian and Jewish counterparts which make up the other followers of Mosaic Law. The major religions are occupied by identity badge followings who demonstrate little more than no belief. Pushing aside contradictory elements, there is not a single religion that vilifies self-serving. Yet, the majority of congregations seek nothing more than the elevation of self. If there was a doctrine of truth it would certainly be personified by agnosticism and perhaps atheism. Atheism does not deny the plausibility of a higher power system but rather the portrayal of God as an adjunct of the conscious and, in that way, super human. A common belief of the badge waving Muslim, Christian and Jew is that God is a grandfather who sits on a giant throne. The cornerstone of Mosaic belief systems is that man was made in the image of God and, therefore, ultimate wisdom comes with ultimate age. The truth, as the atheists will affirm, is that God was created in the image of man. Moses merely found agreeable sentiment that suited his purposes to pin on God. As no one, not a single person ever, has actually met and communicated with this smiling bearded one true God, progressive “Prophets” finding new causes have allowed the self-serving nature of man to amplify through their numerous holy texts. Therefore, by this standard, belief does have nothing to do with truth.
That is why atheism is the popular choice of the truth seeker. Those who belong to the global society’s out-group (which is the vast majority) tend to steer towards Buddhism. That is why Buddha’s faith in a deity is questioned to which end some go as far to say that he denied God. Whereas this is not true, Buddha did intimate direct prayer was pointless and that God can only be found through experience. Conveniently this discussion has come fully circle. Is Buddha saying that true belief can only come from truth and truth can only be assured as a direct result of experience? If that were so the only way to achieve absolute enlightenment would be with complete and unblemished understanding. Understanding is another word for knowledge which should be another word for truth. The corruption of truth can be found in belief.
So, now perhaps others can see Winoe.