I did not consider it a good thing, when I had convinced myself and all my opinions to lay at a middle/neutral point where I couldn't select a single one. It ma

I did not consider it a good thing, when I had convinced myself and all my opinions to lay at a middle/neutral point where I couldn't select a single one. It made me feel as though I had no sense of self. I studied a bit of Zen with some folks, where I started simplifying every point of view to 'thinking about thinking', or a deconstructionist approach to every conceptual construction. This allowed me to assign a more weighted value to every opinion I could have, so I felt as though I was being somewhat more careful. With this mindset, I still feel as though I am tricking myself, but, I add concepts/values/ideas/understandings/acceptance of understandings much more slowly and less definitively. Even then, there's the foggy feeling that remains, every thought exists in some context with some assumptions. You can continue to question what assumptions exist that you aren't aware of, and redefine your opinions through that vocabulary instead, and perhaps convince yourself into a point of view you would never consciously switch to given knowledge of the prior, through the trickery of time and language. Trying to maintain a coherent view of the world assuming the possibility of relativism across all domains is insanity. Trying to function with that mass of unanswerables leading to possibly infinitely descending chains of undefined, fuzzy variables is like hitting a wall of meaningless symbols. It makes doing things in reality trivial. The task of coming to know what you explicitly, continuously define as unknowable is impossible. In theory, logic is beautiful. But there's stuff that makes logic seem incomplete, when it comes to application. At the trail end of the thought, it still feels like thinking about everything all at once, while knowing nothing.