(i) universality, class and individuality

a reflection

this is a slightly modified version of a comment on this post by Bruce Charlton. the main question posed by the post was if human consciousness is primarily determined by universality, group participation or individuality.

*

my own assumption is that all three are true and valid on their own level, but i assign them values: universality being the lowest common denominator, and hence of least value. then classes (and within these classes some classes are more particular than others, and hence more valuable), a step above but still not the point, the goal. then individual, which is the goal - to be able to say, like Jesus, I AM - not I am this or that but I AM, period.

now, unfortunately, i also observe that we don't all or always operate at the highest, individual level - some never do, most only rarely. i know that for most of the day of most days i don't rise above the level of class, or even of universality. that's because it is so easy to be distracted, to become immersed in triviality. when i'm working, i may be indeed just a man, completely interchangeable. this is the tragedy, perhaps, of normal life in a bureaucratic world - as opposed to, say, a medieval world where, i think, a farmer would never stoop so low as to be 'just a man', and instead was always a farmer, though at the same time he never was more than his class. so maybe it's a condition for individuality that there is the danger (and hence the reality) of falling into the mass.

now, class, perhaps especially if it is innate, has - unlike universality - some value, because it will influence also the quality of our individuality. we bring something from the levels below, but those things we bring are not the goal, they are just the flavor, the color - but not the thing itself. i think on this point many have the view that individuality transcends these things, and what they mean by this is in fact that one is thrown back into the indistinction of universality. i very much object to this view, it is a smuggling of oneness through the backdoor.

while on the subject of class, it must be mentioned that there is a primacy of sexual distinction, and it is a category of its own, and of higher importance than the other characteristics within class. being portuguese or english, for example, may have a large influence on the individual, but there are cases, rare though they may be, where nationality is transcended or even rejected (though i would still say there are hard limits here). but this is definitely not the case with sexual distinction. we will always be individual men and women, not individual neutered humans. and this is of course related to our source, our Heavenly Parents, and our future, our Exaltation, to put it in Mormon terms.

if Love is the goal then individuality must be too: God cannot truly love a class, and much less a mass - even in the Old Testament, it's clear he loved some individuals outside the chosen people more than most within it. and whatever seed of individuality there is in any man, that's what God loves, and what he can Love. the problem thus is the reciprocation, men can only love God as individuals, and hence i can only love God when i rise above class and universality. in fact, i would say we can only truly love as individuals. if i love my country just because i am a part of it, it is not true love, and if i love my wife only because she is my wife, it is not true love. and thus, if i love God just because he is God and i am his child, then i don't truly love him. hence the importance of knowing God's character, who he is (and of considering him as an individual, rather than as an abstraction), so we can actually love him, and not just fear him or worship him.