Ultimately I feel like it comes down to the relationship between emptiness and form. When I'm overly focused on the emptiness property of form then I fail to relate to form ("mere symbols"). It's a dualistic trap, imagining that emptiness has some kind of independent existence which transcends form.
It certainly can become a dualistic trap, this sort of ‘overcompensating towards emptiness’ to put it crudely. Because, like you say, at that point one has likely become attached to the idea of everything being completely equal, which is not necessarily any better than the alternative.
The example that comes to mind is Ken Wilber’s commentary on Spiral Dynamics (quote from A Theory of Everything):
Because pluralistic relativism (green) moves beyond mythic absolutisms (blue) and formal rationality (orange) into richly textured and individualistic contexts, one of its defining characteristics is its strong subjectivism. This means that its sanctions for truth and goodness are established largely by individual preferences (as long as the individual is not harming others). What is true for you is not necessarily true for me; what is right is simply what individuals or cultures happen to agree on at any given moment; there are no universal claims for knowledge or truth; each person is free to find his or her own values, which are not binding on anybody else. "You do your thing, I do mine" is a popular summary of this stance.
This is why the self at this stage is indeed the "sensitive self." Precisely because it is aware of the many different contexts and numerous different types of truth (pluralism), it bends over backwards in an attempt to let each truth have its own say, without marginalizing or belittling any. As with the catch words "anti-hierarchy," "pluralism," "relativism," and "egalitarianism," whenever you hear the word "marginalization" and a criticism of it, you are almost always in the presence of a green meme.
This noble intent, of course, has its downside. Meetings that are run on green principles tend to follow a similar course: everybody is allowed to express his or her feelings, which often takes hours; there is an almost interminable processing of opinions, often reaching no decision or course of action, since a specific course of action would likely exclude somebody. Thus there are often calls for an inclusionary, nonmarginalizing, compassionate embrace of all views, but exactly how to do this is rarely spelled out, since in reality not all views are of equal merit. The meeting is considered a success, not if a conclusion is reached, but if everybody has a chance to share their feelings. Since no view is supposed to be inherently better than another, no real course of action can be recommended, other than sharing all views. If any statements are made with certainty, it is how oppressive and nasty all the alternative conceptions are. There was a saying common in the sixties: "Freedom is an endless meeting." Well, the endless part was certainly right.
See also: pre/post fallacy also known as the pre/trans fallacy.
If people get a sense of meaning, stability and fulfillment from their views, and their shadow side is not obvously worse than the shadow side of other views, then what am I really trying to achieve by introducing other views where they are not wanted?
You are wise to mention the shadow sides involved here. I think any time one attempts to impose a belief system an another, it’s not bound to go well, because it assumes that your belief is in some way ‘better’. This evangelism or zealousness in itself is the shadow, I would say.
The original post was not meant to suggest any sort of external action, per se. Though reading it back, I can see how it may seem to suggest that. Likely, there is some unconscious intention that I am not yet aware of. But mostly I think, it’s just something I’ve observed, that has been frustrating at times, and this forum is one of the few places that I know of where this type of thing can actually be talked about in good faith.
A subtlety to this is, I don’t think it’s always the case that what one perceives as threatening (in this case, the idea of someone trying to convince you to change your beliefs) is actually that. To use a modern example, I think of the way the American political left is portrayed in the media, specifically by right-wing media. “Obama wants to take your guns”. “The left wants to make Christianity illegal”. Etcetera. From my experience, this isn’t usually true. Mostly people just want basic access to health care, better wages, etc. Things that would be considered basic human rights in many other countries. They just want to be able to live happily. Unfortunately that usually does require that the more conservative, fundamentalist inspired values are not imposed on them in the form of legislation. Which, I would argue the US power structures are still heavily weighted towards (though, that may be changing). This idea that the liberals are out there trying to make you compromise your values is as much the result of propaganda and learned behaviors as it is anything else... it is one of the main tactics used to maintain power and manipulate people (on both sides, I should say).