Of course, explaining how morality might arise as a matter of causality isn't the same as justifying certain actions based on moral principles. The history or genealogy of morality isn't the same as making the best moral argument for a course of action. The danger there is the naturalistic fallacy.

The question would be what makes for the greatest mental "clarity." Buddhists and mystics have one answer, while existentialists have another. I think what's clarifying is the broad philosophical overview of where our species stands in relation to the wilderness. That overview is full of "thoughts," however, so it may not be clear in your sense of being free of cognitive attachments. But I think the philosophical-historical overview generates a sense of what's precious, absurd, and progressive.