I'm not saying your article attacks me directly because obviously you have little information to work with there. We don't really know each other. But your line of criticism is plainly ad hominem.

You go psychological, saying, "Cosmicism is actually a projection of human psychology." And then you say, 'When a philosopher says that the universe is “uncaring”, “pitiless”, or “indifferent”, what they might mean is that life has been very cruel to them personally.'

You're talking there about cosmicists, not cosmicism. You're psychoanalyzing your opponent instead of dealing with the concepts and arguments on their own terms.

Your line of criticism is plainly personal. Maybe that's inevitable for you and for mystics like Sender Spike because you believe reality is fundamentally subjective and personal. But logically speaking, it's a fallacy. That means logic presupposes the difference between objective and subjective or psychological questions. Perhaps this is why phenomenologists and idealists like Heidegger and Hegel criticized formal logic for being too naturalistic.