Partly this is because I don't yet really know why myself. Finding one's way to life-beliefs can take time and effort.
I think you are in the situation I was in a few years ago - an indecisive one, which is not bad at all actually; anyway, good luck on this pursuit.
Part of what troubles me about your 'logical' perspective is its seeming incompatibility with human behaviour. Since emotions, as you say cannot be rationalized, mathematicized and predicted with certainty, they do not seem logical. Indeed, from a perspective of mathematical logic they would not seem to exist absolutely. However, they quite patently do exist IMO (although I'm sure that I'm making some kind of logical error there). Basically what I'm saying is that your applications of a logical viewpoint to human problems seem questionable given the inherently illogical nature of humanity.
Actually, I do not think the human is inherently illogical at all in the way you are talking of here; the human perfectly conforms to the rules of logic, but uses more sets of starting assumptions. In a truly universal sense, nothing that lies in the absolute can be at all illogical if the consistency assumption is to hold, but we as humans require some additional assumptions for actually discovering and
understanding our reality in addition to merely existing within it and being a part of it. So in other words, all of our actions are logical from a universal perspective (e.g. even if everyone in the world "decides" to kill themselves, it will just be part of the workings of reality), but since our assumptions should be chosen so to minimize their quantity while maximizing the indeterminacies resolved, we can thus narrow down our systems of logical consistency much further than the actual workings of the universe. This was a subject I was stuck on for a long time actually: a system of purpose (where everything in the universe has a definite meaning and purpose) led to all sorts of contradictions, but one that eschewed all meaning left too many things uncertain to be of much use as an assumption, so I have currently settled on a system where purpose/meaning is a perceptual attribute of any object, idea, etc. but can be made into an absolute quantity by putting into material practice, and this forms a sort of synthetic interaction between the two. (kind of a combination of the ideas of Wittgenstein, Hegel and Russell) The same applies for any non-absolute idea. This tends to stem into details regarding the connections between the various perceptive realms and the absolute one, but I won't go too much into that topic right now.
Also, I actually do think that there will be some point in the future where science will have advanced far enough to predict human emotions with mathematical accuracy. There is the possibility that emotions stem from true random events of sorts and thus would be impossible to fully predict, but there has really been nothing to suggest the truth of this any more than the probabilistic nature of, say, elementary particles.
Looks like I rambled on quite a bit there; some of this stuff is rather hard to explain but I should have it made more precise in the coming years.
Perhaps this is due to conflicting base views. From what I have read from you, your belief in the Universe and humans seems to be of determinism, biological psychology and so on - something which I disagree with on a base level (though I find it difficult to articulate due to the nature of the subject, and the fact that it's nearly midnight and I got up at 7AM this morning).
Yes, that is about right for my assumptions, since it would be against the principles of induction to assume that the human would be a probabilistic unit in a truly deterministic universe as long as we have no additional information; either both are determinstic or both are probabilistic. (same reason that scientists assume that the laws of physics will hold in the next galaxy just as well as they do here) The alternative is of course the probabilistic system (quantum theory-style), but that would still amount to an effective deterministic system for our purposes as far as this topic goes. Also, it is 10PM here and I just woke up, so I will be awake until 6 or so.
Oh, don't get me wrong; I don't oppose all change - or do you mean that I oppose changes that happen not for a reason, but because they can? Anyway, I'm considered fairly radical though not in the directions that you are...
Well, almost all of the world's population resists change simply because it is change, so as long as you don't fall into that trap, all is good.
Of course I want change - but I want it on my terms, like all other humans.
That sounds fine, but what exactly defined "your terms?" Those are subject to change from outside influences.
Oh, and the Unabomber article is an interesting read. "The Dangers of Leftism" indeed; I would like to see a comparative "Dangers of Rightism" analysis. 
hehe, you could probably find something like that elsewhere on the internet...
Who cares about politically incorrect? That's inhuman. Most of our POWs had nothing to do with the WTC or anything of the sort. Those that did are getting "special treatment", you'd better believe. Most of the guys we're lockign in cages like dogs, they're just some Afghan farmboy who joined the militia so he could feel he had some control over his life, or so that he wouldn't get shot. Or, he's a member of what would amount to a political party in Afghanistan. They're every bit as human as the rest of us, they just happen to be on the losing, and thus "wrong" or "evil", side.
We probably will end up executing them, anyway, since we really can't send them back home, and can't just leave them there.
You speak as if there is something wrong with that. Of course the US is the biggest, most evil monster in the world, but so what? This brutality should work well as long as it is publicized and thus these people made an example of to future hostiles. Although there is nothing that really defines "human" as an adjective, keep labeling them as "inhuman" anyway, because that will serve as a good propaganda technique to get the masses to follow.
Although I do agree with your "who cares about politically incorrect" statement.
