Where you say, “I like the implicit possibility that anything one thinks to be true can very quickly be proven to be a fabrication”, that is a philosophical premise that you take as true, formally contradicting what you just said, and if later you can not prove in a very quick way that it is just your fabrication you also contradict the substance of what you say.

Quoting Joan Didion you approve when she says that “We live entirely by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the ‘ideas’ with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria which is our actual experience”; she uses again “We” as a personal pronoun to say “We tell ourselves stories in order to live.”

But despite what Joan Didion says, and forgetting about her “We”, you start judging the frame that contains the story/life of others:
“What I have come to see, for example, is that certain of these attempts to freeze the frame are like a red rag to a bull to me. I have an irresistible urge to puncture the inflated bubble of literal-minded, humourless, holier-then-thou types who spend their life complaining that everyone is not coming up to their high moral standards, who invariably are quite paranoid, the paranoia being the fear that their inflated and unsustainable idea of themselves will collapse, which of course, it will. I can see that this lack of humour is the bedrock of the totalitarian, in spiritual circles and in the individual, which includes myself ”.

It is you here who justify your invective with a high moral, anti-totalitarian, ideological/philosophical reason; my previous comment replied to that.

Your way of changing frames to your narrative, with the related categories, is very evident here:
“Seeing the fluidity of reality is the creative starting point.
Rigid thinking or ‘totalitarianism’ destroys or makes impossible this fluidity and freedom.”

I do not know if it is relevant but even artists can live within a rigid frame, immersed in their fluid creative process they could ignore the precursors of a new Nazism at the door.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaAHEXebVSk

The narrative idea does veer dangerously close to the dead-end of post-modernism if seen in a purely philosophical context. This philosophy says that all viewpoints are simply equal narratives, none is truer than the other.

The flaw of this idea is that if all viewpoints/truths are seen as equal narratives, what privileges this ‘truth’ – that all narratives are equal – over other narratives? It`s a dead end, a double bind.

But in the context of art, specifically in Jean Didion`s case, she is talking about creative writing: it`s no longer a philosophical problem but rather a condition by which things happen.

Seeing the fluidity of reality is the creative starting point.

Rigid thinking or ‘totalitarianism; destroys or makes impossible this fluidity and freedom.

I live in that part of Germany where social nudity is accepted as way of life and as Indian i feel humbled and gratitude. Not a single time I have lusted after any of those women. My lust is triggered only by emotions.

Sheela gave the nude shot at the instance of Osho. Master wanted to provoke Indian mind-set back home.

Unfortunately, provocateur died and left behind conformist dudes and cowards who wet their pants with the idea to write about master with head held high.

Without a narrative, an open book or a diary about ourselves, how could we answer simple questions such as:
How are you? Are you happy to be alive? How is the phase of your life going on?
Fromm: Is your life influenced by a syndrome of death (necrophilia) or love (biophilia)?

Therefore, you too could have your own vision of life, having asked yourself the basic existential questions that do not afflict the less neurotic species than ours.

Maybe you too have learned lessons, laws, limits; and you need them, if you are not self-destructive you can not do not keep it into account.

I agree with you that not being aware of one’s narrative can lead to an arrogant attitude towards other narratives, as seems to happen for strong and intolerant narratives, which are totalitarianisms.

But not to distinguish between narratives does not contrast with totalitarianism, rather, putting them all on the same level, even those alternatives to it, ie those that are anti-totalitarian, favours the Pensée Unique*, the most subtly dominant narrative today.

If there are no more ideals or ideologies, if indeed all the narratives are equivalent then: you born, you produce, you buy, you die.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9e_unique

I need to have several pairs of socks which are all the same, but only wear one at a time.

You have the stunning hypocrisy to lament and whine over Sheela’s loss of innocence, and how that ‘somehow’ validates your cause, yet her loss of innocence had become your gain, when you published a naked photo of her on SN some time back – that you gleefully admitted to lusting over.

So tell us, Noble Crusader, which of the two photos of Sheela do you have as your desktop wallpaper?