I agree with you there about problem-solution thinking as being our civilization's main style. And styles may have differed between civ's, e.g. it was probably not the Tibetan civilization's; Ellul at least wants to grant that Tibet had a 'passive' civilization once Buddhism arrived.
I'll say more about Heidegger in connection with thinking, to kind of show where I'm at on it. Despite being pro-civilization (and occasionally an elitist inspired by Nietzsche) as far as I can tell, he was staunchly against Modernism and its technology. He didn't even want to call the problem-solution style of thinking 'thinking,' but instead observing (in a different sense than you use it), i.e. a reductionist making-entities-present-at-hand, taking them to be exactly as they appear to us or can be used by us. And these entities, he says, are 'enframed' today as a standing reserve of resources, on stand-by to be converted for and used by something else, which is itself on standby for something else, which is in turn for yet another purpose, ad infinitum, such that nothing has its own distinct purpose and purpose itself is thereby destroyed. His version of thinking is an openness to the way things are made intelligible or meaningful at all instead of taking it for granted (instead of ingratitude in a sense), setting this way into word or art to preserve it (and here I start to disagree with him like Zerzan insofar as only some special people are artists or thinkers and that they need to externalize these insights into the dead products of artwork or writing), but also setting out into the wild (he says 'uncanny' or 'unhomely') overwhelming precedence of the way itself in all things, in order to possibly receive from it new instructions as to how to be / see / feel (and insofar as these changes are received degeneratively, I think he sees this as constituting history, a systematic developing and dealing with an original error in lockstep, whereas if the instructions had been received properly and in full, the thinker would have stayed in an original and powerful mythology, not history). An interesting thing to note about him is that he completed a translation of the Tao Te Ching, but problems arose and it wasn't published, and he had lengthy correspondence with Zen Buddhists in Japan (the Kyoto School if I recall).
So I can very much see what you mean by thinking more differently as one becomes more wild/feral. I didn't mean to say 'the primitive worldview' as I did above. That's very misleading. There would be as many views as there are different viewers and even those would change per person over time, which isn't to say there wouldn't be an overall pattern in a whole band. So I didn't mean that a given worldview that is primitive would somehow be stable, which would suggest that it had been written down or ensconced into a priesthood or elite through which everyone else would have to go for 'the goods,' whatever those may be. When I said 'the' I meant that overall pattern that makes a certain bioregion's bands' or a certain tribes' thoughts distinct from others'. This would be the culture's superstructure, in cultural materialist terms. That's all I meant by worldview. I would even take issue with the term 'world' insofar as its roots mean 'the age of man.' But I don't kick out the word altogether because thankfully language is not simply its history.
I'm interested to hear more about Casteneda. I don't know about him, but the impression I got when I last looked him up is that he made many personal innovations on his portrayal of certain tribes' beliefs, and that he has been taken to most kindly by new agers.