On first glance your post looked like it was written by someone who lacks the ability to write clearly. At second glance it looks like it's simply the product of deconstrutivist thinking and therefore not easily accessible.

I'm not sure that the way a few terms get used here is clear to you.

Economists started to speak about rational agents when they mean an agent that optimizes it's actions according to an utility function. In those models it's not important whether or not the agent has reasons for his decisions that he can articulate. On LW we use a notion of rationality that's derived from that idea. Rationality is using a systemized process which has maximizes utility.

In retrospect I'm not sure whether that's a good way to use the word, but it's the way it's evolved in this community. Here it's not about engaging in an action that can be rationalized.

Parables do happen to be a nice tool but it's a tool that's not easily understood. Cognitive Science suggests that our naive intuitions about what parables do are not good.

Eliezer recently wrote on facebook:

I don't know the status of informed debate on whether there was a real person corresponding to Buddha at the start of Buddhism, but if there was, telling the mythology as if Buddha stood up from under a tree containing the entire idea, and furthermore woke up with the ability to explain it using parables that people needed to have faith in and would only fully appreciate years later, did a tremendous disservice to Buddhism.

The concept that deep parables do exist and do things with time lags of a year does get acknowledged by Eliezer. On the other hand we lack any good theory. If you read HPMOR with a critical eye you see that it's full of parables.

The problem of parables is that it's hard to talk about them directly.