I see the PV as a contradiction.
Instead of a PV doctrine, there should be an H&O doctrine (hearing & obeying)
I can agree to a point - that is what the PV does teach, but by example. In covering the conception, parturition and birth of Christ it directly indicates the identity of Christ. But what should not be forgotten was that Mary was a
particular person with a
particular role in the Incarnation and the history of salvation. Her life lived out in Christ is not exactly like Peter's, nor Paul's, nor like any other Christian's. In relationship with God, we remain
particular persons -- and this is evidenced in scripture (or how else would we explain the stylistic differences between the Gospel writers, or sense a different personality in Peter vs. John or any other apostle).
We are all to hear and obey, indeed. And in recounting the lives of earlier Christians, one notes that in hearing and obeying - where it is "not me who lives, but Christ who lives in me", in losing one's life to Christ one does
not cease to be the unique person created by God. David is not confused with Abraham, John the Baptist is not Thomas, Peter and Paul are distinct. We do not, in Christ, revert to some "primordial ooze" of non-differentiation of persons. And this does return theologically to Trinity, "three Persons, one essence".
Love is relational -- if the personhood of Christians is abrogated in the loss of personhood, there is not love. Thus, Saints are remembered as persons. The PV of Mary is the particular experience of this (not that) person in Christ and further indicates the identity of Christ and her particular "living out" of her life in Christ.