Generally speaking, I prefer to speak of one's "heart" to one's "soul." This is because the soul is thought of as an existent, viable object, even if only a metaphysical one. Whereas "heart," in this context, is thought of less as an object and more as a vehicle by which some other process occurs. My heart yearns, my heart swells, my heart breaks. I find this to be more relevant to the concept's nature by a very long shot.
Whether soul, heart, or whatever else you wish to call it, it is both the most resilient and the most fragile thing you will ever possess. As you unwittingly implied, crow, there is nothing in the universe, physical or conceptual or otherwise, that can damage this thing unless you consent to it. The only one who can take your heart/soul from you is yourself. I say you unwittingly implied this due to this concept: "...that newly mature soul leaves the body, flies free into the cosmos, and becomes everything..." What can be more immutable than, well... everything? Totality? The universe as whole - not just in matter, but also in movement, time, change? The totality of existence, from beginning to end - or, if there are no such things, then all of eternity? What is more immense? What can one possibly do, to dilute eternity?
So then your soul, or whatever, is your only infinite sword in whatever war you choose to wage. But it is also incredibly vulnerable. It is a tool not of steel but of glass; it does not suffer slight damages. Any fracture is traumatic. You cannot take a minor hit to your soul. And the sharper your edge, and the more capable your wielding of it, the more damaging a blow to it becomes. It is only a hardened heart that bears its pain lightly, because only such a heart can both accept the knowledge that such injury was allowed by oneself, and simultaneously shrug it off, thinking "business as usual."
To see things with a critical eye can be useful sometimes, but it has in our times turned into an insane obssession.
True. Very sad. And this exists at every level, really. Authority apparently only exists to be mistrusted and disobeyed/abused, depending on which side of it you lie. Showing disrespect to others seems to be the only way to efficiently gain respect from your peers. Hierarchy is an intrinsically offensive concept. The nature of God changes based on what people want out of him. Relativism is the only absolute truth, whether in physics, anthropology, morality, religion, or taste.
My personal position varies so much that it is practically useless to describe it at any given time. Most of my arguments are never my own; they belong to other people... I do, however, worship the "absolutes" of our universe.
If you worship the absolute, why would your personal positions vary at all? I would suggest you simply choose a position, on any given issue, at whatever time it becomes relevant, and then stick with it. It doesn't have to be the position you like most, the one that is the most reasonable, or the correct one. Make your choice randomly if you need to, so long as you do choose. And then defend the hell out of it. Even if on some level you feel your choice of position was incorrect. Choose one, and then force yourself into believing it. Slay all heretics who dare blaspheme against it. Not literally, of course
This would be a path, not a destination in and of itself. Your attitude is one I recognize intimately. Because of this, you strike me as having reached the point in your particular approach where it can no longer serve you. You now need to graduate to the next level, which would be commitment in your case. Which will become loyalty. Which will become, and laugh at this if you like, faith.
My apologies if this insults you. But I do stand by it, even if it does.