At the center of Western Philosophy is self-orientation. Which presents us with a sometimes too-cute paradox.
Several OKIC curios can bring insight that helps us see past the potentially limited representations available to us when passive listening by others serves as our inner route to orienting ourselves.
For one, self-belief carries a necessity where mirroring other must be something other than unbelievable (the basis of Theory of Mind). We have a responsibility to ourselves to believe others. In this is the underlying dynamic of participation.
Western Philosophy focuses on the philosophical narrator, model participant if you will, as being the center of participation. Yet conflation arises as ambiguity is inadequately tackled (through disambiguation or assessing assumptions).
Intent is conflated with confidence, logic with connection, and perspective with responsiveness.
In the figure below, the Shield (outermost circle) indicates that the philosophical narrator exercises HSR sovereignty, that is, maintains command of their own intent, logic and perspective. From this emerges the tensions over motivation, modification and origination that are at the heart of Western Philosophy’s “classic” triumvirate of conflictual, and yes narrator-centric, theories.
Western Philosophy yields narratives for relating to other narratives. As such it most certainly supports some humans in recognizing, understanding, and developing context-sensitivity. Truth becomes easier to hold as a process rather than an outcome, making for more dynamic debate and inquiry.
However, since philosophical narrative is another, if higher, form of tautology (it is so because I said so) it does not hold an answer to dealing with the representational mirror effect - the necessity of believing in the other. When we out-narrate others, we effectively neutralize their participation.
In this, Western Philosophy shows its real paradox: with mutual, ambiguous okayness comes a meta-logical, participatory black box. A representational void. With that, the requisite believability for identity itself goes missing for participants, who may then be shuttled into focusing on problems (defined by others).
If only the problem being tackled was participants not being believable! Thankfully, that’s where OKIC shines.