But we don't trust those who have been blind all their lives to describe what things look like to the other blind people. In fact, people who are cured of life time blindness sometimes lack the cognitive development to comprehend what they see.
This... this is just unrelated, on my part because I added too much to what was a better metaphor.
I think this metaphor is insufficient, or I'm too dense to understand your intentions. The imbalance in a beehive would be dysfunction, and balance would be conformity. With enlightenment, people are promised something that they ordinarily don't have. It might be being argued that people without logic and technology are enlightened, and that these thing take us further from enlightenment. If that's the case then I disagree.
I'm alluding to a general axiom. Everything, every concept, etc., that exists has an opposite, and these two opposites work in synergy to produce a unique whole. Protons and electrons in an atom are a classic example. The whole atom is naturally balanced, but its component parts naturally aren't. Enlightenment is the process of a component part moving towards a balanced state within the center of the whole; becoming a neutron, per se.
This sounds like ENTP gibberish (no offense). Truth is the correspondence of a claim to reality. My God this cat is being adorable... err.. If it so happens that reality is a superstate of all possibilities at all times, then you're correct, but even if that is the case, you only experience one possibility. I'd make the distinction between your truth, which is entirely unuseful given the scope of your experience, and truths which relate directly to what you actually experience or are more likely to experience. Essentially, I'd add the unspoken assumption clause of "I have/am/will experience..." to every thought.
The golden mean fallacy says that when presented with a a list of 1-7, the answer is always 4. I'm saying that the answer is 7! (<-factorial, not 7). I'm alluding to this process (#1), which I actually only recently discovered written better than I could write it 
: http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=392707&postcount=24
I assume Bhakti is for those with Ni and Jnana Ne.
The reality is that all possibilities, all loci (<-niches) exist, regardless of whether or not they're currently or actually occupied. There is no distinction between niches at the macro level. One... forever pictures themselves as part of the machine, while imagination identifies empty niches when it glides past them, sort of like the using cigarette smoke to identify security lasers trick, if security lasers were actually real things.
Sorry, I'm getting off topic, but I guess this is as good place as any to address this. Consideration of infinite possibility taxes finite resources. The tools used to simplify the reality equation are essential for any meaningful thought to occur. When you state that truth is all possibilities simultaneously, you're either setting restrictions on what qualifies as a possibility, you're not acknowledging the limitations of a finite cognitive capacity, or your claim is a redundancy as it's not speaking of truth as a construct that is known. Pull me up if I'm lost, I'm finding it difficult to tie thoughts together atm.
Finally, your take of this enlightenment business may not be a golden means fallacy (you make it very difficult to attach any labels to anything), but as presented in the OP, that's pretty much exactly what it looks like.
***
