I’m moving away from the ideology that in the broad sense pertains to the to the optimism of the Enlightenment in Western thought. I do not think that we can, by using mental deductions and calculations, really know as much as we had thought we could about other people, or even about ourselves. We can know a great deal by using rational calculations, but in the end, actually, we cannot close the gap to know everything using this method of knowledge. There is always something lacking, something unsatisfying in the end, when it comes to closing the final gap in our knowledge so as to be sure of anything. This especially relates to how well we can understand other people, and how well they can understand us.

My view is that the scientific method, so far as we have developed it, just simply doesn’t take us all the way we need to go in order to be certain of our knowledge. It leaves us bereft and stranded with a partial knowledge — but also with the additional temptation to make an unjustified “leap of faith” on the basis of our partial knowledge, and to declare ourselves fully knowing. After all, it is frustrating to build bridge over an ocean, traversing several kilometers and not be able to close the final half kilometer. (Many people claiming definitive scientific knowledge about “human nature” are actually bridging their limited knowledge by making an additional leap of faith.)

So I am realizing that it is more honest, more pleasant, and indeed more humane, not to claim any definitive knowledge about anybody else. We cannot peer into their souls. We may, to some degree, peer into our own souls, but there is always that final half kilometer of unknowing, that would need to be spanned.

From an outsider perspective, they are so illogical because they are not trained or educated to perceive differences in others and to respect those differences. I do not mean just in relation to their fellow Americans, but in terms of actually being able to notice that other people from around the world are actually different from them.

It seems like a vicious circle, then — their insularity drives their high emotionality; and their high emotionality in turn feeds into very narrow, anxious and insular perspectives.

With regard to this, what it means is “We are all Americans now!” Even I, who have never been to America, and don’t pay close attention to American politics am in some Cybernet sense “an American”.

If I express a view online, it is likely to be taken up by an American, and I am then treated like I belong on one side or another of the American political divide. (I get to learn, indirectly, what sort of American Americans think I am. )

But, in turn, it must be really weird having so many foreigners weighing in on the American debate — just because they are forced to do so. I’m sure it adds many confusing, and extremely illogical aspects to the already muddled American political situation, just because we, who are in another country, are speaking about totally different things and totally different experiences than the Americans are speaking about in their county.

It must make things seem insane, indeed!