Question

Hi, I’m Mosh (from the last post). For some reason I’m not able to write a comment there, so I’ll write here. 
—
Thank you very much for your detailed response!
First, I’d note that what I meant was that these apologetic remarks are unusual in the overall landscape, even though you often defend the first model. But that’s no big deal—everyone knows about your general unconventionality (some would even say, deliberately so! “The opposite seems more plausible” :))…
As for the substance of the matter:
It seems that the gist of your claim is that we are not the purpose of creation; there is a purpose that we were meant to serve. Okay—but what I meant to argue is that the dichotomy between the two types is incorrect.
I definitely think there is a purpose that is proper to serve. But… in my view, the right balance between ascetic withdrawal and worldly life is the correct and justified one, and that itself is God’s will.
To live like Rabbi Elyashiv and the Rogachover is, to my mind, an extreme approach that is not justified. The world was given to us, the Torah was given to us, and we need to combine them together—to live normal lives and also toil in Torah.
The simpler it is, the more correct it seems to me. Dogmatic extremism (like Rabbi Elyashiv and the Rogachover), taking the approach to the end of the rope, is unhealthy, impairs judgment, and above all runs counter to God’s simple will.
Isn’t that so?