Hippie Dippy Bulls**t - Discussion
I used to think of myself as being fairly flexible because I was always trying to challenge conventional thinking and suggest alternative views. Lately I've come to understand that is actually quite rigid behavior. 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? Sometimes people are willing to be challenged and other times it just causes suffering for no discernible benefit and simply being present seems to be the best strategy. Not moralizing here, just reflectng on my experience.
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. That's why you need simultaneously to remain aware that emptiness is none other than form, i.e. emptiness is just another property of conventional reality (Nagarjuna). If there was no form then there would be no emptiness either. My reality is just as real as your reality, even if from your perspective it looks like a crock of shite.
I would even go as far as to venture that every object is a symbol and all it symbolizes is itself. If you like it and don't feel gulity then ice cream is happiness, not just a kind of happiness (which makes it seem like a watered down version of the real thing). If you believe it then Christ is the Redeemer and if not then there's always something else. Kind of tired and just thinking out loud now.
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. That's why you need simultaneously to remain aware that emptiness is none other than form, i.e. emptiness is just another property of conventional reality (Nagarjuna). If there was no form then there would be no emptiness either. My reality is just as real as your reality, even if from your perspective it looks like a crock of shite.
I would even go as far as to venture that every object is a symbol and all it symbolizes is itself. If you like it and don't feel gulity then ice cream is happiness, not just a kind of happiness (which makes it seem like a watered down version of the real thing). If you believe it then Christ is the Redeemer and if not then there's always something else. Kind of tired and just thinking out loud now.
J W:
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).
I agree with a lot of what you say and my conditioning is fairly liberal, but I'll play devil's advocate.
Personally I'm not a fan of having large numbers of military grade weapons in circulation, but from the point of view of the gun owner it's basically true that a large leftish group wants to reduce their access to guns, so they are right to feel threatened (irrespective of whether or not it's right for them to have their weapons).
I don't think the left wants to make Christianity illegal, but certain kinds of Christian values actually are threatened by leftish values. Lots of people came to the US to escape religious persecution and that paranoia still seems to be an active part of the collective psyche.
In more general terms, I would argue that holding any view strongly (even liberalism) is usually in response to a perceived threat, otherwise why bother investing the considerable energy required to hold the view in the face of all the counter-evidence? It seems to be the case that we hold strong views about things we don't actually affect our immediate day to day experience that much and which we don't have much power to change.
Seeing how the pandemic response has played out in the US causes me to doubt whether most people just want access to health care, better wages, etc. Apparently 30-50% of the country values their perceived Freedom more than their health or welfare. In general it seems that people value things which appear to give their lives meaning more than they value their actual lives. Isn't this basically the fear of emptiness, being prepared to die for one’s cause?
Of course, it just seemed like a safe and obvious metaphor to use here 
You make good some counter points. I guess, like anything, it has to do with ignorance. By thinking that your 'self' is this static thing that is defined, or sustained by, a specific set of values, it is easy to see how things which do not conform to that set of values could be taken as a threat to someone who is thinking in these absolutist terms. Just the knowledge that an alternative exists challenges their idea that their values are absolute.
Not really countering any of your argument at this point, just musing...
You make good some counter points. I guess, like anything, it has to do with ignorance. By thinking that your 'self' is this static thing that is defined, or sustained by, a specific set of values, it is easy to see how things which do not conform to that set of values could be taken as a threat to someone who is thinking in these absolutist terms. Just the knowledge that an alternative exists challenges their idea that their values are absolute.
Not really countering any of your argument at this point, just musing...