When “I” becomes “we”: the paradox of individuality
Love REQUIRES OTHER, that which is what is NOT me.
“… only as the infant builds a sense of self that is distinct from mother can it develop a relationship with mother.” (Paradoxes of Group Life, p. 103)
“In regard to God, loving and being loved in return are not possible in the case of others who have some share of infinity or anything of the essence and life of intrinsic love or of Divinity. If there were within them any share of infinity or anything of the essence and life of intrinsic love–of Divinity, that is–it would not be others who would be loving God. He would be loving himself.” (Divine Love & Wisdom 49)
“For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:46-48)
Just as any real love and relationship requires other, so group requires individuality:
“The group gains its solidarity as individuality is legitimated, and individuality is established when the primacy of the group is affirmed.” (Paradoxes of Group Life, p. 100)
And yet there are those we call, “enemies”, and those we call “friends”:
“On one side, we find expressions of the collective good, the call for a commitment to a common goal, the need for self-sacrifice, social conformity, and the compromises of the social contract. On the other side, we find the virtues of individuality, creativity, freedom of expression, and the stimulation and growth from which all human progress is sculpted.” (Paradoxes of Group Life, p. 101)
Jesus taught, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” (Matthew 19:17)
Elijah was called trouble maker:
Then it happened, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said to him, “Is that you, O troubler of Israel?” (1 Kings 18:17)
“a man’s enemies will be those of his own household” (Matthew 10:36, Micah 6)
The tendency is to attribute the problems of the group to one person or another, and to attribute particular good and evil motivations based upon whether they happen to agree with ourselves or not. But Swedenborg’s work – in particular on charity – reminds us: * my greatest expression of love will be towards those who are different from me, * everyone can have the group’s best interests at heart and AS A RESULT OF THAT, have opposing and contradictory views. * to step beyond the external: the enemy is evil and falsity, wherever it occurs, but most especially as it occurs within me. Unity requires acceptance of diversity The problem will always be a tension between group-ness and individuality. To be part of a group is to share a certain commonality with others. Yet there are things I do not share with other members of that group, which make me an individual. I don’t want to lose them, any more than anyone does, but the potential is real that my individuality – or that of others – might be rejected, or event come to be seen as the enemy in the group. I fear that, and so protect that which makes me individual, holding it out of sight of others, withdrawing a part of myself from the group. This undermines my full participation in the group. And there is no end to this division, because we are all uniquely individual. There is not even one single other person in all of creation with whom I am identical. And this variety is an expression of the infinite Divine – yet so often we see it as weakness, as evil.
Here’s your challenge for the week: Go find the person you disagree with, the person who holds an opinion different from your own, the person who lives in a way that is different from you and has a different expression of life, and show them love. Are you able to show love to “other”? Realise that their need for love from you is just as strong as your need of love from them.