I'm aware of the Buddha myth and the Bodhisattva option. So the disagreement here is about that middle path of balance or compromise. Can the mystic be integrated into society? Can she fully participate in society? When would that participation start to cast doubt on the alleged mystical perception that most folks lack? I'll have to write something directly on this question.

It's clear to me that if you're "playing" with your life as a game, as Watts says, you're not going to behave exactly like everyone else. You won't necessarily live in a cave, avoiding all human contact, but neither will you take much of the secular world seriously. That includes morality, by the way, as well as symbols of social status, the problem of environmentalism, romantic love, etc.

Playing with your life does suggest a form of cynicism. I can see how the artistry would fit into Daoism, but the question is whether there's a point at which the mystic would stop playing and start to take something seriously.

And it's always possible that mystics water down the upshot of their teachings so as not to disturb ordinary folks or to alienate themselves. That's the Leo Strauss line.