Maybe we need to step back from the theories drawn from specific circumstances and consider the underlaying dynamics.

It is safe to say one could go to any society in the world and in history and there will be those seeking to transcend the social boundaries and those seeking to maintain and develop them.

Simply because that it life. We are driven by our desires and formed by our judgements. Heart and head.

The fact is that not every acorn gets to be an oak tree. We can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't take both paths at the fork.

Should we chose not to select, nature does it for us.

Consequently there will always be this feedback between the anarchies of desire and the tyrannies of judgement.

The problem is that we have this cultural paradigm of monist idealism, where it is all supposed to coalesce into some more perfect state. The ends of which this life is the means. The pot of gold at the end of the narrative arc. Even if just the bottom line of Mammon.

So each side of this dichotomy see themselves as on the one true path and the other side, or any other side, as misbegotten fools, if not evil.

Though the actual effect is this kalideoscopic hodgepodge of everyone chasing their tails, trying to frame needs, preferences, identities and impulses as some cosmic universalism.

Which can possibly be traced back to monotheism, if not much deeper.

The fallacy of which is that a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. The fact we are aware, than the myriad details of which we are aware.

Conflating the ideal, which is aspirational, with the absolute, which is elemental, can only lead to mental mayhem. Given all the resulting belief systems see themselves as universal, rather than unique expressions of time and place. So there can be no 'Live and let live,' as the existance of the other is an sin and insult to one's true God.