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.
7 comments:
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 that i don't rise beyond 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. so 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.
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 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, speaking for myself again, 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 i am his child, then i don't truly love him. hence the importance of knowing God's character, who he is, so we can actually love him, and not just fear him or worship him.
@Laeth - Excellent comment!
I was partly thinking of the blind-alley/ dead-end that Mormonism made for itself by trying to revive the tribal (i.e. class) level of thinking that characterized the Old Testament world view. This spilled over into the (I think: silly) Mormon idea that Heaven is subdivided into three categories (+/- each of these further subdivided) on the basis of allegiances/ memberships, rituals etc during mortal life - and that these classes are either fixed, or else difficult to overcome (and only by LDS church-related activities - such as baptism of the dead).
This whole line of LDS thinking strikes me as wrong, regressive, damaging.
I should add that when it comes to classes, there is a sort-of exception in terms of man and woman. Earthly manifestations of man and woman may be very confused by circumstances, pathologies and all kinds of things.
But there is a deep and eternal sense in which there are two "kinds" that, when brought-together in purpose and meaning by the attainment (and possibility) of an everlasting commitment of love, are the basis of procreative creation-itself.
In other words, the primary creation was and is from our Heavenly Parents, and these parents have a qualitative difference that we call man and woman (Heavenly Father and Mother). This reality then set the frame for divine creation in some profound way - only very approximately manifested in mortal life on earth (nonetheless a glimpse of the ultimate).
@Bruce,
Thank you.
yes, indeed, I should emphasized the primacy of sexual distinction within the class domain, and I agree that 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, in Mormon terms.
this makes the missteps of Mormonism with regards to class even stranger: that they were able to advance so much in one sense, while going a step backward in another. at the same time, this may have been a requirement for there to be a Mormonism at all. if it hadn't been a church, it would have been a mere intellectual movement, and it would have probably withered away like all movements. now, however, it definitely works against what is needed.
@Laeth - Somewhat aside, and just for-your-interest (!) - I think that (at least in the "medium term" of foreseeable futures, although the future is not closed by God), there are quite a few people who do not/ will not desire the highest degree of exaltation.
In other words, I suspect that some incarnated human beings would choose to remain eternal "children" when resurrected, and probably live with their birth families or something analogous. rather than proceeding to divine parenthood.
But I do not think anyone who desires resurrection would choose to be eternally adolescent - that (IMO) is a pathology of the modern West!
@Bruce,
that's probably right. although it doesn't help that the very question of exaltation, celestial marriage, etc, is so foreign to so many people. how are they to choose if they don't know it's an option. yet, i think it's so intuitive that at least some will choose it when presented with the option - even if they might be surprised by it. surprised by joy, one could say!
@Laeth - Well, I certainly don't regard the current cultural milieu (including the churches) as anything like ideal preparation for post-mortal salvation and exaltation!
Maybe the currently incarnated majority of Men include mostly those pre-mortal spirits who were judged to have a low probability of choosing full deity (and their mortal lives are mostly about "mere" salvation, more than theosis)?
Maybe most of those who would choose full deity have already been resurrected?
I don't have any clear sense of what may be true wrt such matters, and at present don't feel motivated to consider them.
Individual is more decisive and an ultimate reality after all. This is why political nationalism is mostly false
Post a Comment