I think you've got a good topic here - at least as I read it. That is that most folk's worldview is solipsist, self-centered. You identify that with place and the centrality of the point of experience. The problem: how to break out of that to a more expansive world-view - not as a matter of empathy or even psychology, but as philosophy. Is there any forceful idea that leads, pushes, and guides to a greater and more comprehensive world-view?

And, to be sure, there's the corollary question of just what that world-view comprises.

I think you've got a good topic here - at least as I read it. — tim wood

I have been told the idea as is expressed is not very clear, and by making that remark, you to make me again ponder about how to make it clearer. Do you have any suggestions?

Is there any forceful idea that leads, pushes, and guides to a greater and more comprehensive world-view? — tim wood

Indead. I suggest that the idea expounded by this model of human identification, might just be that forceful idea that leads, pushes and guides, or is at least a necessary framework for the wannabe traveler...

In a previous post (different thread), I posited that,

Belief is a response to knowing. — BrianW

I explained it thus,

Our relative perception of an absolute reality creates a comprehensive < > unity... That is, our awareness of reality as containing what we know and don't know has resulted in the response we categorize as belief. — BrianW

In detail, I would say that our faculty of knowledge, our intelligence, is a whole unit (not fragmented). Therefore, all that we perceive and analyze as having utility - knowledge - becomes assembled and stored within that faculty. The resulting aggregate, belief, is significant as a key ingredient in the generation of our experiences. It is a reference point for the 'measure' of new experiences and a mirror through which we reflect past experiences in order to determine what value to extract from them.

To answer the question,

What means do we possess to go from belief structure to belief structure - to move from place to place in this metaphysical world? — Perdidi Corpus

I think the means is learning because by gaining more knowledge we inevitably expand our beliefs.

What is the relationship between a question and its answer? - That is: Where do we have to be so that the answer is seeable — Perdidi Corpus

I think, we are in principle never going to be in a position to see the answer to our question. The question is asked from a position that demands an answer that does not and cannot exist in the same position the question was asked from. Insofar the answer is seeable, we would perhaps need to be an entity capable of having epistemic access to reality non-subjectively i.e. without restraints or distortions from our perceptual and introspective faculties. But, I think the relationship between a question and its answer is that of limiting the questioner itself. What eventually comes out of it is the limit of what seeable answers the questioner can know before the limit is reached and the answers to our questions are no longer visible.

In the absence of understanding people resort to beliefs. Children believe in a real Santa Clause until they learn enough to understand that he is fiction, based on St.Nicholas.
Most people will never find meaningful answers because they don't know the proper questions to ask.

In the absence of understanding people resort to beliefs. — 4thClassCitizen

A belief need not be baseless. In fact... it´s never baseless - The base may not, however, be a foundation over which someone well acquainted with logic would be willing to use as his own.

I think, we are in principle never going to be in a position to see the answer to our question. — InfiniteZero

With the exception of the type of case presented below, I too think it would be silly to use the same point from which the question came from to answer it. But one can move and that is what I am trying to get at here - an algorithm that gets you from a question to an answer or at least to the smallest range of answers that would all be possible according to the framework provided my the presuppositions the question carries with it. Other questions may indirectly aid in shortening even further this range.
The idea of "seeing an answer" is basically just saying that the answer is obvious from the point which we perceive. That point, I posit, should be a universal algorithm if we want to use it to answer a question. As for the algorithm itself I have a few ideas but they seem too basic to be useful by their collective selves.

The question is asked from a position that demands an answer that does not and cannot exist in the same position the question was asked from. — InfiniteZero

That is actually not true. For example the question - "What does it mean to mean?" Already speaks from a perspective from which the answer is knowable at least in the form of "That's what it is". If you wish to discuss that particular question, or a few other questions that relate to this topic, consider going to the following thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3980/what-prevents-us-from-seeingknowing-the-truth - You may also discuss that question here.

I think the means is learning because by gaining more knowledge we inevitably expand our beliefs. — BrianW

Yes... new answers do aid in seeing the world from a different perspective. But then ... so do questions - A question you are trying to answer might just force you to move somewhere where you are not - or maybe you don´t even need to try to answer it in order to move away. Do you think that is simply because questions already provide a base of presuppositions we end up standing on?

That is actually not true. For example the question - "What does it mean to mean?" Already speaks from a perspective from which the answer is knowable at least in the form of "That's what it is". — Perdidi Corpus

Yes, I agree to the fact that we may know what type of answer we may come to have from asking our question. However, it is the token content of the answer I was aiming at in particular. I guess it would be something like an epistemic humility view. We can ask the question, we may even know that the answer posits something about that there is something to know out there, yet, the content of the individual objects in question remain in principle beyond us having epistemic access to them. the algorithm may provide us with knowing the type of thing that is in question and give us an answer to what type of thing we are trying to get at. But, no algorithm may capture the contents of the individual objects that are in question, the contents of which we are not in any position to know. Parallel to how no mathematical formula captures the contents of the objects it represents, only its structure.

I agree that one can answer parts of the question as you show in the example that way. But, answering through pointing out "that's what X is" doesn't give us knowledge about the content of X in any way. I do not perceive or introspect the contents of X. If I asked the question "how does the water in Omaha beach feel like?", then I would know once I experienced it myself. I could get second-hand knowledge or know that it feels like the water in some other beach or something similar, or simply know that it feels "watery". But the knowledge of the content of what the question asks us would elude me unless I had the capacity to experience it myself and acquire knowledge of it that way. Knowledge regarding more fundamental properties perhaps may be such that they do in fact escape us this way.

Do you think that is simply because questions already provide a base of presuppositions we end up standing on? — Perdidi Corpus

In a way, yeah. I think when you formulate a question you reveal to yourself the choice you want to make, or the direction you are tending to.

What is the relationship between a question and its answer? - That is: Where do we have to be so that the answer is seeable? — Perdidi Corpus

Do we ever really get a direct answer or do we arrive at a series of probable outcomes which get us past one step to another until we realize we've already gone past our initial problems (limitations) and must then focus on the upcoming ones. Coz I feel like there is some cyclic patterns which we tend to revolve around until every turn of that circumstance becomes too familiar not to understand.

Evolution created a set of creatures fit for the Earth. It selected, had chosen from miriad of possible creatures, thta could exist if conditions were more favorable for them in terms of reproduction. Everything in a world of creatures is tied up to reproduction. From here I think, that world has lot of times more possibilities of live things existing, that do not relate to reproduction. People can use those "possible creature characteristics, unique qualities and abilities" when creating AI, because AI does not need reproductive function, nor does it need digestion or immune system, etc. The result will be — AI or robots or other devices that outnumber all existing life on Earth, starting with bacteria. That is total domination of AI, people playing role of fungus feeding off of it, and in a way playing role of reproductive, recreative system for AI. :)

What is the relationship between a question and its answer? - That is: Where do we have to be so that the answer is seeable? — Perdidi Corpus

I believe I have reimagined your illustration.

Going back to your symbolism of the valleys and mountains, we begin as open minded as possible in the valley. Then we take the first step in research and building knowledge. As we ascend the mountain of truth we must overcome roadblocks and slips as we climb. We become more polemic about reality, learning about ourselves and the mountain on the way up. We learn from our mistakes, and we figure out from the rock formations of opposing ideas what is real. Until the day we reach the climax of the peak and see not only the answer to our question but the answers to life in general. It takes time I believe.

I don't think it's wrong to take ques from opposing ideas to your idea as long as you don't forget who you are. Sometimes opposites complement each other.