No-one - certainly not myself - is denying that thought has evolved to serve the purpose of survival and thriving. Who is denying this?
What is this “conditioned” to whom apparently any earnest communication is “irrelevant”?
I don’t understand all these evasions and prevarications. Thought is just thought. Words are thought - ideas, memories, images, are just thought. And thoughts, memories, images, ideas - words - will never, under any circumstances, or in any universe, be sufficient to describe or stand-in for actuality. Actuality can only be perceived, apperceived, directly contacted by awareness or attention, etc.
It is only attention that will reveal “the conditioned” - not thought.
This is why my very first question to you on this thread was
Perhaps you [are] distinguishing between thought/thinking and intelligence?
(For K intelligence and insight often overlap in his vocabulary).
You seem now to be (implicitly) accepting this. Insight is not rooted in thought, even though it can use thought to express the insight.
Insight is not thought or based on thought (or memory). Thought is no more material to insight than clothes are to someone who puts them on to express the fact that they feel happy.
Thinking is a part of our total mind - which includes the senses, the emotions, awareness and the brain - so it is a natural part of our lives. But thought is not necessary in attention. In Buddhism they use different words for this state of attention, but in Buddhism too attention is a non-conceptual state.
Thought has its place, but it has no place in truth - in K’s approach at least.