Confusion is a sign of having at least understood something.
If you look at the history of human world and self-relations, then you realize that often not the best were the most connectable but the simplest. Under a negativistic optimism, or more precisely a transactionalistic negativistic development-open optimism, I understand less a closed philosophical doctrine than rather an attitude. After that, any answer to the question of truth, which in some way is simple, is wrong. Truth is thus unpleasant and uncomfortable, but nothing that is uncomfortable is true for that reason alone. Otherwise, there would be a comfortable way to determine truth. Analogously, the question of an eternal truth is not decidable, since justifications for their non-existence are not really easy, but they seem to me to be comfortable. But such a truth could not be static in any case. But what would life be, if you were always so precise with the truth? Moreover, in my view, there is hardly anything more comfortable than pessimism. This negativism thus goes beyond the negativism of Critical Rationalism of Karl Popper. In particular, in my view, all underlying distinctions of concepts develop through a social process of reciprocal and co-constitutive transactions. Analogous to the development of reciprocal and co-constitutive relationships, one could say that all who observe with the same distinctions are involved in a common sematic relationship network. On the other hand, I consider social constructivism as well as radical constructivism not self-applicable. Furthermore, I advocate an anti-essentialism but not an epistemological anti-fundamentalism. Although I consider a solid epistemological foundation impossible, an experimental one in the form of an experimental ontology might be practicable.