Narrative Knowledge and the Paradox of Philosophy

General theme: Narrative Knowledge

What are the consequences of our relying on narratives as a means to knowing, understanding and relating to the world?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of our using narratives as a fundamental way to communicate with one another?
Have our interactions and interrelationships in general become captivated (literally) by an excessive dominance of narratives?

Just as walking upright has enhanced our ability to navigate our physical world, so has communicating via language enhanced our ability to navigate our social as well as introspective worlds.

Dirt paths and asphalt roads we have created during our long process of walking upright have at the same time ultimately determined how we now currently interact with our physical landscapes - closed loops, literally and figuratively.

Have all our inherited created narratives also closed-looped our minds, rigidly structuring how we relate to our own selves and to others?

Is a key to cultural progress and evolution simply to add many new narratives, all expressing divergent perspectives? Or would de-narrating both our inner and outer worlds be an equally - possibly even more - valuable strategy?

With what could we replace narratives if we still wanted/needed to connect and interact with ourselves, with others and with the world?

Special theme: The Paradox of Philosophy

Are there better ways to arrive at insight, understanding and meaning than by thinking philosophically?

What we might call a "philosopher's paradox":

1.Philosophizing essentially demands optimizing our thinking (reasoning, conceptualizing, imagining...) as well as our overall awareness (of here, of now, of others, of self...).

2.Thinking typically diminishes awareness, and vice-versa.

3a. Western philosophy tends to prioritize thinking (abstract) over awareness (concrete).
3b. Much of western philosophy (even Phenomenology!) is consequently narrative in form.

Conclusion: Optimizing our thinking necessitates ridding of (or at least suspending) our awareness. Nevertheless, awareness remains a valuable vehicle for attaining knowledge and insight.

Is this "philosopher's paradox" simply an intellectual bug? Or is it a fundamental - arguably problematic - feature of our thinking that impedes us from knowing and experiencing anything most directly and fully?
What better ways are there in any case to understand the nature of ourselves, our world and our existence than through thinking and philosophy??
Is a dog or rabbit more in touch with being and reality than a human?

"Between your thoughts, it's the space that listens." Elias Amidon, from "Medicine Beauty"

Illustration: "Socrates, Plato, Aristotle & the Buddhist monks" (concept by Alan Woo, executed by ChatGPT)