Thank you for your answer.
You are right, social media is also a source of inspiration, but in the multitude of daily feeds I find it to be one big cacophony, as you say, a competition for recognition.

When I reflect on who have been my sparring partners in my existence as a blogger, I find that it has been those who have contradicted me, who have pointed out my own thinking errors or criticised some over-idealism of mine with a certain firmness but nonetheless a great interest (spending their time on/with me). In retrospect, I am glad to have had the experience of running my own blog for several years and practising debating. Like you, it serves me like a diary of sorts.

One of the outcomes for me was that I learned to be more tolerant of doubt and I think that only the crazy mind is free of doubt.

I'm not sure what exactly else I've learned and what it would have been like, for example, without all the online conversations and encounters. It's hard to say.

obvious from the outside objective perspective to merely be conditioned, homogenized programs.

I feel sometimes it's a curse to be able to take an outside perspective (I would not go so far to call it "objective", though). I shall quote Humberto Maturana in this:

In general, every organism, in particular any human being, can be simultaneiously a member of many social systems, such as family, a club, an army, a political party, a religion or a nation, and can operate in one or another without necessarily being in internal contradiction. A human being, operating as an observer, however, can always define a meta-domain from the perspective of which he may see his participation in the varial social systems that he integrates, and find it contradictory. Conduct as observer by a human being implies hat he stands operationally as if outside the various social systems that he otherwise integrates, and that he may undergo in this manner interactions that do not confirm them. An observer is always potentially antisocial.

To grow as a member of a society consists in becoming structurally coupled to it; to be structurally coupled to a society consists in having the structures that lead to the behaveioural confirmation of the society. The spontaneious course of historical structural transformation of a society as a unity is toward its structural coupling to the medium in which it exists and, therefore, toward the stabilization of the mechanisms that generate its defining relations through the stabilization of the properties of its components. In the domain of human societies this means the stabilization of human conduct. But, the stabilization of human conduct always entails a restriction of creativity through a restriction of the possible interactions of the individual human beings outside those prescribed by the society that they integrate. The extreme case of this, of course, takes place in totalitarian society of any kind.

Or, in other words, the historical course of spontaneious transformation of human society as a unity is towards totalitarionism; this is so because the relations that undergo historical stabilizations are those that have to do with the stability as a society as a unity in a given medium, and not with the well being of its component human beings that may operate as observers.

Coming back to you

just letting each soul go through its own process as it will

I really do hope and try to become ethical in this way without lying to myself.