2
OF THE INDIVIDUAL
SUMMARY
The the Second and Third Axioms of the Society remove any way of comparing the
value or worth of individuals during our mortal lives. With the addition of
the uncertainty set out in the Treatise of Knowledge, this Treatise concludes
that we have no alternative other than to treat every living individual,
whatever their background, qualities or characteristics, as equal in worth and
value to every other individual. It goes on to show that we are obliged to
protect and preserve all living creatures and the whole of the environment on
which our society depends.
An implication of the Second and Third Axioms, touched upon in the Principles
of Unity and Peace, is that the value of contribution made by each human
individual to our communal life can only be fully assessed in retrospect.
Only with the benefit of the perfect hindsight that our liberation from time
will bring, and when the outcome of what we do is fully known, can we be
accurately judged.
The effect on the Society and its members is far-reaching and profound. The
Society accepts that an accurate estimate of the value of any individual can
only be made after, and at no time before, its Aim has been achieved. Only
after that reunification of our species beyond death will we be able to draw
all the skills and knowledge of the whole of humanity into an examination of
every moment of human history in order to form, in retrospect, some proper
estimate of the contribution each individual has made to our survival and
progress. Even then, so profound is our uncertainty that the issue may still
remain beyond our capacity finally to resolve.
No-one can say now, or at any moment before we achieve the Aim of the Society,
what our successors will then conclude. We may then find, for example, that
at some otherwise obscure point in our history a totally incapacitated child
had an effect on the thought patterns, life style, experience or behaviour of
its contemporaries that was a crucial factor in our survival, or a turning
point on our path toward our liberation from death. Or we may conclude that a
single, apparently random remark or action, made unwittingly by an otherwise
reviled and degraded individual supplied the key to a critical puzzle.
As has already been concluded, such judgements require the comprehensive
hindsight that can only be obtained by the achievement of the Aim of the
Society. Pending that event all any member of the Society of HumanKind can
properly do, and all that can be required of them, is that they should try to
raise and develop whatever skills, abilities or capacities they may find within
themselves, or observe in others, to the maximum of their potential. They
should then strive to maintain social conditions and personal relationships
that will allow the full application of those attributes to the achievement of
the Objective of the Dogma and the Aim of the Society. Those complex and
interrelated tasks must be undertaken with the humility that must follow from
an understanding that only when those apocalyptic tasks have been successfully
completed will it be possible for anybody to make any reliable estimate of
value of any of our lives or our works.
Adoption of that stance on these questions by followers of the Society must
lead them to a further conclusion. They will understand that neither the
obligations just described, nor any of the conclusions about the proper form of
our social behaviour that follow from them, will be in any way altered or
affected by the hazards and chances of human existence. Those chances and
events may bring injury or disability to an individual, or inflict destructive
or debilitating pain and suffering on them. But those who follow the Society
will regard such accidents and incidents as merely alterations in the
circumstances or characteristics of individuals. They may change the
contribution those so afflicted make to the life of our species, but they can
never determine their true value in our history.
The foregoing discussion is of even greater importance to those who choose to
become members of the Society of HumanKind. It must lead them to recognise
that, by a choice of the Dogma and the Aim of the Society, they are left with
no ground on which they may make any claim to innate or ultimate superiority
over any other member of the human species, however inadequate, disabled or
disadvantaged they may appear to be. The Society and all its adherents must
never lose sight of that fundamental principle of the equality of all humanity
which arises from the Principles of Unity and Peace. They must cling to it
despite the Principle of Progress which requires all adherents of the Society
to acquiesce in a framework of social relationships that may generate
differences in power, wealth or status as between individuals or groups.
Any such structured and stable form of society may well confuse and obscure the
Axiomatic equality of all humanity in the minds of adherents of the Society.
Communities may, in time, evolve relationships of almost permanent superiority
and inferiority as between differing individuals, or sections of society.
Such social differences may be fully justified by the need for the survival of
our species and accord with measures of social worth used in their time,
thereby taking on every appearance of being normal or natural to the human
condition.
But adherents of the Society should however, always be able to correct and clarify
these issues through the clear light of the Axioms and the destruction, by a
choice of the Dogma, of the possibility of there being any available independent
or objective measure of the proper value of individuals during their lifetime.
The perspective provided by the Axioms and Dogma will help them to recognise
that any such social distinctions are merely the outcome of human action and
decision and do not imply any real difference in the Axiomatic value of
individuals.
This insight should have a special impact and importance for those members of
the Society who may find themselves the accidental and incidental beneficiaries
of the social order into which they happen to have been born. Those so
privileged should take special care to keep the Principle of Peace in mind.
By so doing they will constantly reflect on how much their present advantage
arises from the chances of their birth, and the decisions and acquiescence of
their fellows. They should also grasp how easily the conditions of their
success can change.
The unpredictability of the value of any individual created by an acceptance of
the Axioms and choice of the Dogma should also lead to a reinforcement of that
part of the Principle of Peace that sanctifies life in all its forms. The
Principle 2.3 requires all adherents of the Society to preserve and protect the
environment on which the infinite survival of our species depends. That in
itself is a sufficient argument for the protection and preservation of all
living creatures. But the Society should also recognise that the life forms
which share our environment have effects and consequences in our lives and for
the achievement of the Aim of the Society that we can neither assess nor
predict with any certainty. A single sparrow, indistinguishable from its
fellows to the human eye, may be the sole example of a hitherto unknown and
valuable variety; contemplation of a reviled and repulsive insect may trigger
new and powerfully useful insights; the sight of a flower may inspire and
transform a man.
The value of the contribution of each human individual to the achievement of
the Objective of the Dogma and the realisation of the Aim of the Society can
never be fully assessed prior to that cosmic change in the human condition.
Neither can the Society weigh the worth of any of the life forms that share our
universe and shape our physical and mental environment.
Prior to our escape from death however, the Society must expect to be required
to distinguish between; the value or worth of members of our species; the
relative benefits of qualities or characteristics of individuals; and the
survival of differing life forms. In its struggle to maintain the Conditions
of the Dogma and so to pursue its Aim the Society may find itself forced to
choose which individuals, characteristics, or life-forms it is to save and
which must be abandoned. In dealing with those complex day-to-day problems of
our survival and progress during the mortal era of humanity, the Society may
reach, or be driven to, the conclusion that it ought to accept disadvantage,
disablement or even the destruction of a form of life, be it one of our own
species or that of any other.
It should consider doing so with great hesitation, never forgetting that the
sanctity of all life is set out in the Principle 2.3. Such decisions may
nevertheless be found unavoidable. If therefore, the Society finds itself
forced to disadvantage, disable or destroy let that be a long last resort.
And if we are left with no option other than to shorten or end any of the many
forms of life in our universe, or suppress any of their qualities or
characteristics, let it be solely better to pursue the Aim of the Society of
HumanKind, and then only when we have fully and carefully considered, and then
reluctantly rejected, every other course open to us.
|