3. Individual Image of the Individual Truth Being
In addition to the universal image of Sungsang and Hyungsang, and yang and yin, each individual truth being has unique attributes of its own. These unique attributes are the individual image of the individual truth being, and it goes without saying that this individual image originates from the Individual Image of the Original Image.
3.1. Individualization of Universal Image
The individual image is not an image separate from the universal image; rather, it is the universal image specialized, or individuated. Since the universal image is composed of Sungsang and Hyungsang, and yang and yin, the manifestation of these attributes in a different and unique way in each individual being is precisely the individual image of that particular individual being. In the case of human beings, the personality (Sungsang) and physical appearance (Hyungsang) of individuals differ from one another. Furthermore, the yang and yin of the Sungsang and the yang and yin of the Hyungsang of individuals differ from one another. For example, joy (a yang emotion) is expressed differently by different individuals, as is sorrow (a yin emotion). The nose (a yang part of the body) differs in size and shape from individual to individual. The ear canal (a yin part of the body) also differs in size and shape from individual to individual. Thus, the individual image can be understood as an individualization of the universal image.
3.2. Specific Differences and Individual Image
Those characteristics which a group of beings has in common are called taxonomic characteristics (Merkmal), and those taxonomic characteristics peculiar to a certain specific concept are referred to as the “specific difference” of that being. For example, “human being,” “dog,” and “cat” are all specific concepts, and are grouped together, under the more generic concept of “animal.” The specific difference then, of human beings is “reason” since it is unique to the human being. (From the viewpoint of Unification Thought, both taxonomic characteristics and specific differences are connected to the individualization or the particularization of the universal image.)
The taxonomic characteristics of a particular living being are a combination of the specific differences of the different levels. Consider, for example, the case of a human being. As a living being, the human being has the specific difference of an animal rather than that of a plant. Furthermore, as an animal, the human being has the specific difference of a vertebrate rather than that of an invertebrate. As a vertebrate, the human being has the specific difference of a mammal rather than that of a fish or a reptile. As a mammal, the human being has the specific difference of a primate rather than that of a carnivore or a rodent. As a primate, the human being has the specific difference of Hominidae rather than that of a long-armed ape. As Hominidae, the human being has the specific difference of Homo rather than that of an ape-man. Finally, as Homo, the human being has the specific difference of Homo sapiens rather than that of a primitive man.
In this way, the taxonomic characteristics of a human being include the specific differences from seven different taxonomic levels, namely, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. Upon the foundation of the specific differences from each of the seven levels, the special and unique characteristics of an individual, namely, one’s individual image is established. Thus, it might be said that the individual image of a human being consists of those characteristics determined based on the set of specific differences taken from seven different levels.
In actual fact, however, the specific differences of each of these seven levels in human beings are only classifications created by biologists for the sake of convenience; God did not create human beings by successively piling up layer after layer of these various specific taxonomic differences. It is written in the Divine Principle that “Prior to creating human beings, God created the natural world by expressing partial reflections of the internal nature and external form He had conceived for human beings” (DP, 34). Thus, in creating the universe, what God first thought about was the complete and unified human being; yet, the human being was the last to actually be created. Taking the image of the unitary human being, which He had envisioned in the very beginning, as the standard, God subsequently formed the conceptions of animals, plants, and minerals. In other words, in the process of conceptualization, God first developed the conception of human beings, and then that of animals, then plants, and finally minerals and heavenly bodies, proceeding downward. Then, with regard to the actual creation, the order followed was the exact opposite: God first created minerals and heavenly bodies, and then plants, animals, and finally human beings, proceeding in an upward fashion.
In conceptualizing, the way in which God visualized the conception of a human being was not by separately collecting together specific differences; rather, He immediately and comprehensively formed the conception of a human being as a complete, unitary whole, with all the relevant attributes (i.e., Sungsang and Hyungsang, and yang and yin). Moreover, the conception that came to God’s mind was not that of a man and a woman in the abstract, but rather that of a specific man (Adam) and a specific woman (Eve), with their concrete individual images, namely, the very ideas of Adam and Eve. Next, God subtracted, or abstracted out, certain pertinent qualities and elements from the unitary conception of the human being and transformed them, whereby He could create the conceptions of the various animals. In like fashion He subtracted certain qualities and elements from the conception of animals and transformed them, whereby He could create the conceptions of the various plants. Subsequently, He subtracted certain qualities and elements from the conception of plants and again transformed them, whereby He developed the conceptions of the various heavenly bodies and minerals. At the animal stage, furthermore, in God’s downward formation of conceptions, God started from the conception of the higher and most complex animals and, by eliminating certain qualities and elements from it, and transforming it, gradually developed, step by step, the conceptions of lower and simpler animals. The same can be said of plants. Accordingly, if one observes human beings only from the phenomenological point of view of the actual creation, one may be left with the impression that the specific differences of progressive animal orders have simply been accumulated, layer upon layer; but it is important to realize that this is just an appearance. One needs to understand God’s conceptualization process, which preceded the actual creation process.
With regard to the microscopic world (e.g., molecules, atoms, and elementary particles), it should be noted that the individual image in this case is the same as the specific difference of the species to which the individual belongs. For example, every water molecule has the same shape and the same chemical character. The same thing can be said about atoms and elementary particles. Thus, in the microscopic world, the individual image is identical to the specific difference. The reason for this is that atoms and molecules exist as component elements of beings of higher levels. In the case of non-living beings, each being made of minerals (e.g., a mountain, a river, and a heavenly body) has its own individual image; with regard to the mineral elements, however, the individual image of each element is the same as its specific difference.
The same thing can be said for plants and animals. Their particular characteristics are their individual images. For example, the characteristics of a Rose of Sharon become the individual image of all Roses of Sharon, and the characteristics of a certain kind of chicken become the individual image of all chickens of the same kind. Thus, the individual image of all things differs from species to species, whereas the individual image of a human being differs from individual person to individual person.
3.3. Individual Image and Environment
The individual image of a human being is that special and unique character that each person possesses by nature, but included in it there is also an aspect of being able to change according to one’s environment. This is so because in every being―just as in the Original Image―there is an identity-maintaining aspect and a developmental aspect, in its existence and development. In other words, a human being exists and grows as the united being of an unchanging aspect and a changing aspect. Of these two, the unchanging aspect is essential, and the changing aspect is secondary.
From the viewpoint of genetics, it can be said that the individual image corresponds to one’s inherited hereditary traits. In the course of growing, the individual image of a human being undergoes partial changes through its continual give and receive action with the environment. That portion of one’s individual image that is changed is called the “changed individual image.” That portion of the individual image that is changed can be regarded, in genetic terms, as one’s acquired character.
T. D. Lysenko (1898-1976) conducted experiments to transform autumn wheat into spring wheat through a process called vernalization, and claimed that the characteristics of living beings could change with the environment. Furthermore, he dismissed as mere metaphysics the genetic theories of Mendel and Morgan, according to whom there exists in living beings an unchanging character, which is inherited through genes. Lysenko ignored the unchanging aspect of living beings and emphasized only the aspect of being able to change through interaction with the environment. Lysenko’s theory was received with favor by J. V. Stalin (1879-1953), so much so that in the Soviet Union the Mendelist-Morganian scholars were ostracized. Later, however, Lysenko’s theory, through further experiments by scholars abroad, was found to be in error, and the Mendel-Morgan theory was reinstated as the correct one. In the end, it became evident that Lysenkoism had been a theory fabricated under the banner of the Soviet government, and had been intended simply to justify the materialist dialectic. Therefore, we can discount that point of view and confidently confirm that everything exists as a unity of unchangeability and changeability.
With regard to one’s individual image, there still remains the question of whether or not the environment determines human nature. Communism claims that the human being is a product of the environment and insists, for instance, that a leader such as V. I. Lenin (1870-1924) could have been born only in the circumstances of the Russia of his time. From the perspective of Unification Thought, however, the human being is the subject and ruler of the environment. In this view, a person who has been endowed at birth with an outstanding individual character can emerge as a leader (i.e., a subject) in order to bring the environment under control. Therefore, in the case of the Russian Revolution, it should be understood that Lenin, who was endowed at birth with an outstanding ability, appeared when the conditions inside and outside the country matured, and he led Russia to the Communist revolution, bringing the environment under control. If we understand the concept of the individual image, we can say that the environment influences only the changeable aspect of the individual image, but not the whole individual image.