"I'm talking specifically about eros."
No, you were generalizing. Again.
"Those who can’t be happy because they’re plagued with doubts, traumas, or mental illnesses that distort their perceptions, and who study philosophy, science, and religion to understand, at least, what’s happened to them — if not to fully heal their wounds — are condemned to wasting much of their time. They can’t work as diligently as the herd of drones, nor obey some evolutionary or social expectations. These outsiders must pass the time by stewing in angst or by sublimating their horror with artistic or intellectual expressions." or "You can fall in love, or you can fall into existential dread and alienation. The more we love someone exclusively, the less we see things objectively. The more of reality we see, the more we’re disillusioned by its inhuman dimensions, and that monstrous vision makes us unlovable."
Those are copy/paste quotes from your article and they go way beyond eros. You juxtapose eros against the existential. And that's a false dichotomy. Those "ascetics, and monks" you talk about "do take it to that extreme" only because they still don't know and can hardly be mentioned as category equivalent to "saints." There are "saints" who know, who are very much tantric. So that's that.
"Those are multiple personal attacks"
