All of this may well be perceptive. But it does not change the fact that some choose to behave as they do on this side of the grave in order to bring about that which they imagine their fate to be on the other side of the grave. With or without God. But mostly [by far] with.
And you will either intertwine the points that you raise here into that discussion or you won’t.
In other words, my “story” revolves around the manner in which [here and now] I have come to understand the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy as this relates to the manner in which [here and now] I have come to understand the meaning of God and religion.
But the “part” that “I” play here is fractured and fragmented by the manner in which I have come to understand the “self” as an existential contraption evolving over time in a world of contingency, chance and change. At least with respect to these particular relationships.
Why don’t you focus your observations on a particular context in which “stories” come to clash. Your own “story” for example. Your own actual behaviors – challenged by others.
Illustrate your observations by bringing them down to earth. Because, until you do, I am not likely to garner a substantive sense of what you are trying to tell me above.
From my frame of mind it is analogous to a New Age assessment. A psychologism in which the emphasis is entirely too much on subjective/subjunctive reactions. It’s all “up there” in a world of words that I am unable to make relevant to my own actual lived life.
How then do you make it relevant to your lived life.
But, again, as that pertains to the thrust of the thread.