Questions about the book True and Unstable

Hello Rabbi.
If I understood correctly, at the center of the synthetic approach is intuition, that is, the ability to observe or sense something not by one of the means we are accustomed to but with the help of the “mind’s eyes.”
In addition, intuition is subject to criticism and examination of the findings drawn from it, and the conclusion or understanding is not based solely on it but is reinforced by tests and criticisms.
This solution truly allows for a reasonable explanation of our generalizations and understandings of the world, such as Euclidean axioms, the force of gravity, and more.
The book explained that controlling issues such as values ​​and ideals is through discourse and trying to look at the values ​​from different angles or see their different implications,
And the explanation for people’s different perceptions on these issues is “blindness” in their ability to observe any idea.
I had difficulty understanding the difference between the synthetic approach’s explanation of the difference between values ​​and ideas and fundamentalist perceptions. In other words, the fundamentalist argument is that you don’t grasp this understanding because it is irrational and to grasp it you need to use different tools and we also don’t guarantee that you will understand it… And so it is with the synthetic approach – you don’t see this value because you are “blind” and this is the truth and it is appropriate and right for you to act this way too even if you don’t understand it.
Although synthetic allows for dialogue and does not close ears, the path of understanding is similar, and a person with a synthetic approach will not change his belief in God, for example, even if he is presented with difficult arguments and is forced to rely solely on his “intellectual” vision.
The division between concepts such as the force of gravity and values ​​stems from the fact that not everyone is privileged to observe certain ideas and many are defined as “blind” compared to the force of gravity, to which few, if any, are “blind.”
And because of the large gap in understanding and between different types of blindness in viewing ideas, an explanation of these gaps is required here, and as a result, I understand the need for analysts to define the difference in choosing values ​​as an expression of a difference in mental and educational structure.
And in fact, in this way, the synthetic approach seems to me to be a type of fundamentalism, albeit more limited and minor, but it is possible to reach conclusions with the help of both without being able to criticize them.

I apologize in advance if the question is due to a lack of understanding.