I agree that panicking or desperation can be counterproductive. Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that the existential rebellion can be counterproductive too. That's my ambivalence about what I call the Luciferian aspect of secular humanism. On the one hand, there's some nobility and honour in the artificialization of the wilderness. On the other, this is leading to consumerism and the sixth mass extinction, which are obviously counterproductive.
We may just be emphasizing different aspects of enlightenment. You say that inner peace should be fundamental to stabilize the emotions that come and go. I emphasize the need for the existential emotions to testify that we get the big picture. If you're not shocked by the monstrousness of godless reality, your viewpoint isn't yet fully modernized.
We disagree on how anthropocentric this big picture should be. But what I'd add here is that I'm fine with saying an enlightened person or transhuman would come to some peaceful arrangement as opposed to raging and randomly lashing out. I'm not suggesting we should be constantly horrified.
The question for me is whether enlightened action should be motivated by emotional detachment or dispassion, which seems to me dubious, or whether the inner peace should, rather, stabilize the right foundational emotions. As a matter of fact, people who are wiser than animals have reacted against nature by building the civilizational fortress. We've been motivated, I suggest, by disgust towards the wilderness we once worshipped before we were behaviourally modernized (in the Stone Age). (I know we disagree about that too.)
In any case, we both say the enlightened mind should have some degree of emotions and detachment or inner peace. But we proportion or emphasize them differently.
By the way, I've written the first draft of that article on this question. It's tentatively titled, "The Antisocial Implications of Mystical Monism."