I’ll give two examples that come to mind right now: composing lamentations for the Holocaust, and the hermeneutics of canonical texts. You can find the articles on the site.
I won’t answer further unless there is a concrete question. I’ll leave the research about me and my doctrine to others.

Every person, including a heretic, thinks that what he holds is the truth….

True, but I also happen to be right about that.

If everyone thinks that what they think is the truth, why do you think that you’re also right about it?
If every machine produced the output “correct” for some input it received, would you trust it?

I’ll join the question: if everyone thinks he holds the truth, and that’s of course completely legitimate, especially if he investigated and examined and has good reasons for it (not out of emotion, a feeling, or a narrow inquiry that doesn’t see the whole picture), then someone saying that in his case he also happens to be right doesn’t really matter that much, because the fact that he says he is right doesn’t strengthen its truth, but only says in another way: I think I’m right (because of this and that…).

And what does it mean, “became more extreme in a heretical direction”? That’s actually an interesting point: if you hold to a certain truth (in this case, a supreme entity in general and Judaism in particular), then everything you delve into that is connected to it ought to reinforce it, and if there is a tendency toward heresy then that raises additional questions about it—or more precisely, about the one who holds it, because someone else will probably say that it simply isn’t true…

Not everyone thinks they’re right about their views, at least not within the framework of intellect and logic.

For example, someone who tells you that his “views” and faith are above reason…
is admitting that it doesn’t stand the test of reason.
He probably thinks he’s right, but it doesn’t stand the test of reason.

Someone who avoids explaining his views—sometimes there are good reasons for that,
and sometimes it’s because he knows—fears—that what he explains won’t stand the test of reason, so he runs away from it.

I have a friend, an important halakhic decisor, a clear Torah scholar, who supports Bibi and his crimes. He has been my friend for decades and there is no weakness in his intellect.
When I ask him how this can be? Where is the reason? the Torah? the morality? the responsibility for the continued existence of the nation?
He admits that there is reason and there is emotion, and his emotion is with Bibi despite his deeds and the terrible danger he poses; for all sorts of reasons he feels connected to it, even though intellectually he understands that it is dreadful and a great danger.
So here we have a developed person who knows that what he “holds” is criminal, but it is comfortable for him.

So I’ve listed 3 cases that ev

So I’ve listed 3 cases, and there are probably more, in which even someone who “holds” something really knows that it is not backed by truth—or at least not by what his consciousness and the intellect with which the Creator endowed him understand to be truth.

We haven’t even yet spoken about the side of the rest of the world: even if someone thinks that what he “holds” is an intellectual truth, even a perfect one,
to the extent that he gives reasons for his views—certainly if it is open to any literate Homo sapiens to examine and follow his reasoned views—we may reach the conclusion that he is right, and we may reach the conclusion that he is mistaken.

Nekhes’, did you perhaps consider that his view about Bibi is a bit different from yours, only he doesn’t have the energy to argue with you?

Nekhes’, I understand what you’re saying, but it seems to me that all this is unnecessary from the outset. People aren’t black and white. There are those for whom many of their views are also politics, and that’s not really what they think. There are those who aren’t smart enough and shout nonsense without understanding, and it holds water because there are people who will buy it. And there are also those who will be intellectually honest, and the moment they make a mistake they’ll be willing to admit it—and that usually comes from a basic assumption that not everything they think is necessarily correct. There are many ways of thinking and many ways of perceiving things in general; anyone can cling to something.
What I asked was how the Rabbi can agree that everyone thinks he holds the truth, and that in his case he also happens to be right. That too is included in what he thinks about his own outlook—that he is right—which again, it’s completely fine to think you’re right; it’s healthy too, a person can’t live with splits. But one can certainly say:
“Yes, I too am one of those who think they hold the truth. I examined and studied and reached conclusions; if anyone has something to add or renew for me that might make me change something, the door is open.”
Or even say: “I don’t think I necessarily hold the truth and am right about it, but I can say that I study and investigate and examine in order to reach it, which many people do not necessarily do.”

To Y.D.
A very plausible possibility in many cases.
Not in my case.
He explains it in terms of experiences of “identity” and tribalism that once existed; it’s nostalgic for him, like a roots trip, and nothing more than that.
He himself admits it.
We’ve been friends for many years, and he is genuine with me.

Anyone who is so humble that he doesn’t dare say he is right—to the best of his understanding—which is just a polite way of saying “I’m right! Period!” (his understanding is in any case all that he has. What else—should he say: “I’m right to the best of your understanding”?)
Had better simply stop expressing his opinion… on this too… In general he should stop thinking; it takes a lot of energy.