A question worth pondering: Is consciousness ultimately individual, a matter of class, or universally one?

When consciousness is different; when people do the same things, they get different outcomes.

That is pretty obvious in some contexts - but not in others. It's pretty obvious that when some people read Lord of the Rings they experience a very different "outcome" than do others; and the same replies to other works of art. 

To some extent, the different responses classify the different flavours of consciousness. 

Such differences of outcome related to changed consciousness, extend to differences over a person's lifespan, different cultures, and - maybe less recognized - "generational" differences across time in the lineal culture and among similar classes of person. 

Even within close-knit groups, such differences are evident. For instance, my family (both birth family, and wife and kids) all enjoy puzzles such as logic games and crosswords, board games and jigsaws and the like. But I am almost unable to do so. (This deficit seems to have been inherited from my father.) 

What I am getting at is that differences of consciousness between times, places and persons, are "the norm" - and probably ought to be expected, but aren't. 

When we have a theory of such changes - analogous to the theory of human development from childhood, through adolescence, to adulthood - then variations in consciousness becomes a powerful explanation for understanding changes in the world, and between people.

The first step in such understanding is classification - positing different types of consciousness to different classes of person. 

Classification certainly has some validity - but closer consideration reveals that the lines between classes are unclear; and individual variation may be highly significant. Indeed, we may notice that there are rhetorical wars afoot over consciousness: 

Universal

There are those who try always to emphasise the oneness, universality and similarity of all varieties of human consciousness. These people often desire to "make it so" - by a uniformity of propaganda, uniformity of treatment, and enforcing a uniformity of outcome (including the denial of any apparent differences). 

Class

There are others who focus on classes of consciousness (men versus women, between different races, different classes of personality type or intelligence measures, or by naming and distinguishing "generations". So humanity is distinguished by class - and perhaps then divided by class, in terms of treatment, provision, measurement etc. 

Individual

And there are those who focus on the individual - although such persons in public discourse are nearly always being dishonest about their concern, since a genuine focus on individuals is contradicted by almost all public policy - and indeed is probably incompatible with our kind of civilization (i.e. one which depends so fundamentally on bureaucracy, law, and regulations).

The reality is that oneness, classification, and individuality all have pragmatic value; but at an ultimate and metaphysical - religious or ideological - level, the situation is contested. 

At the ultimate level the consideration is truth not convenience; reality not pragmatism. Either Men are ultimately "all the same", or else divided into classes, or else are individuals. 

We could also frame the question in terms of God's concern: is it with all Men (or all Beings, perhaps) in an equal and undifferentiated way; with Men as particular classes (e.g. a particular tribe, or civilization, or particular-church members); or is the fundamental relationship with God between God and the individual person? 

This is another of those metaphysical assumptions that we all have-already-decided; although we may not be aware of our decision - and we can, of course, change our minds. 

A question worth pondering.