On the manifestation of personality in the masses

The personality inherent in a person is by no means alone. It combines itself with personality. But, in turn, both of them are only an external manifestation of the duality of the human consciousness, as a result of which this being is able to change both own personality and oneself as a whole with an unusual speed for nature, then putting on the face of goodness, then having dropped it, turning out to be fantastically cruel and ruthless and crushing everything around for the sake of solving unseemly tasks or achieving chimeric goals.

Keywords: individuality, personality, creativity, consciousness, self-consciousness, dissatisfaction, sensations, information, religion, knowledge.

Until now, the manifestation of personality in the masses has not been presented entirely adequately, which is not surprising, since the very concept of personality is being mixed with individuality, the very concept of the people has not been considered in relation to those of its layers in which personality and individuality are manifested differently, on which, in fact, both the content of these layers and their position for or against each other depend.
Such shortcomings are confirmed by the following examples.
Contrary to popular belief, there have always been very few complete of the full-fledged personalities in the ruling elites, since the main attribute of a complete personality is self-esteem, and this leading layer of society was nothing more than subjects who, with rare exceptions, followed the opinion of their superiors and did not disdain, if the opportunity arose, to undermine a rival or to go over, if it was advantageous, towards other superior.
In essence, the full-fledged personalities in the ruling elite were found only in skilled leaders or managers of certain industries, troops or directions on which much depended. Therefore, they knew their worth and tried not to lose their dignity. But such personalities were rare, which explains such chaotic, contradictory, often with rollbacks, course of history, in which the stupidity of those in power often prevailed even over common sense, and ambitions played a primary role.
In other words, if, indeed, the course of history was determined by personalities, who were mostly to suppressed by mediocrities, then perhaps it would not have been so bloody and hopeless for the common people.
As for the idea that has prevailed in people's minds to this day, that the driving force that determines the course of history is the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors, in which, in particular, great personalities-fighters manifest themselves on both sides, then, alas, as history shows, if suddenly, during certain cataclysms, the oppressed seized power, then they began to feel its taste quite quickly and began to resemble their predecessors, and the poor man who became rich for one reason or another quickly forgot about his oppressed brothers, and joined, as a rule, the oppressors, if not directly, then in the role of a rentier.
It is absolutely impossible to call such scoundrels by the full-fledged individuals, and an analysis of their properties can only confirm their egocentric, that is, animal nature, which in no way correlates with a noble, that is, worthy and independent personality who sincerely desires the common good.
The oppressed, downtrodden and mostly illiterate or semi-literate mass of the population, whose number still exceeds the number of the rest of the planet's population several times, also does not suffer from an abundance of the full-fledged personalities, since it occupied mainly with the problems of survival, and not with raising their cultural level, without which personalities can only exist in an embryonic state, being replaced overwhelmingly by individuals of different types, who are similar more on animals.
So, where does a person finally find himself capable of overcoming his animal egocentrism, becoming more or less a full-fledged personality, that is, a special one, oriented not only towards himself, but, for the most part, towards the common good.
A person can get such development only in a sufficiently cultural environment, not burdened with various kinds of prejudices, if he, moreover, possesses such natural inclinations, outwardly expressed in his individuality, like good ingenuity, sensitivity, determination, perseverance, dominance and pry, a fairly high level of which over time in a favorable environment, leads him to the formation of such typically personal characteristics as a high mind, curiosity, will, diligence, self-criticism, responsibility, conscientiousness and conviction in certain developed principles.
The essence and properties of individuality and personality are examined in more detail in my work “Why and how do individuality and personality compete in a person?” [1].
Similar broad and well-founded view of the world cannot, depending on the concentration of certain abilities and the level of developed properties, not lead such a person to use all this for the benefit of society, be it the upbringing of the future generation, the desire for the most effective management of various processes, the manifestation of oneself in art, science or technology, where he will feel not an ordinary executor of someone else's will, but a full-fledged creator.
That is, in such an environment with the greatest efficiency, a personality can be formed, the characteristic feature of which is not the ubiquitous approach to analysis - from the particular to the general (inductive), but deductive - from the general to particular conclusions. It is the latter that contributes to the discovery of something new due to the fact that it does not suffer from a narrow view, but selects everything possible from all sides to solve the problem.
Thus, the most full-fledged personalities, although each person is a personality of sorts, but a very strangulated one, appear in those layers of society that are engaged in the development of something new and unconventional. And this is the invention, art and managerial and organizational activity. Moreover, the latter can be directed not only at working under a contract with the state or other structures, but also against them, if the relevant personalities think that these structures are wrong in one way or another, opposing progress or the basic interests and rights of the population.
It should also be noted that the full-fledged personalities can also emerge from the common people, if a person is strong-willed enough and strives to realize his abilities by all available means, no matter what.
Similar selection of these, so to speak, creative and independent personalities occur automatically, intensifying many times, if the corresponding community has matured in its mass self-consciousness in conditions of competition with other communities to a level that requires a change in the situation for the sake of accelerating the development of this community. It is precisely the insufficient level of mass self-consciousness that still leaves a number of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America in the miserable state of satellites of established developed countries of the West, which have become the most advanced thanks to the accelerated development of their collective self-consciousness, although on the basis of the reasonable egoism and pragmatism.
Such turning epochs for the individual communities, requiring the corresponding type of development in technology, science and culture, remove the passivity of the leading layers of society to the selection of the creative people, which begins to be conducted from everywhere. As a result, the process of community or state development is gaining significant acceleration. An example of this is the so-called industrial revolution, the real, not fictitious reason for which, as well as its course, can be found in my work "Why and when did the industrial revolution begin? and precisely in Europe?" [2].
In this case, the creative personalities even from the lower strata of the population are being involved in this process.
Such creative individuals, in particular, were the son of a simple tradesman I. P. Polzunov, who, although self-taught, invented a clock with a miniature theater, a unique hydraulic device, electrophones and proposed a number of other new projects back in the 18th century; the second lieutenant of the sapper brigade Yablochkov P. N. invented an electric light bulb and an alternating current generator; the assistant music teacher Alexander Bell (USA) became the inventor of the telephone; the apprentice jeweler Robert Fulton invented a steamship and a submarine.
The tramp and loser A. M. Peshkov became a famous Russian classical writer; the son of a peasant F. I. Shalyapin managed to break out of the archaic rural environment and showed himself as one of the most outstanding opera singers.
The son of a grocer, Claude Monet, became one of the founders of impressionism; one of the most famous landscape painters, A. Kuindzhi, was born into a poor Greek shoemaker's family in Mariupol (Russia).
The famous Napoleonic Marshal Murat was a simple groom; an ordinary army officer, Captain Cromwell, showed such organizational and military leadership skills that he abolished royal power in England.
The great church reformer Martin Luther was born into a simple peasant family; one of the most famous reformer-administrators, Lee Kuan Yew, was born into a middle-class Chinese family, but managed to become a lawyer, and then became the author of the Singapore "economic miracle".
*
Generally speaking, when considering the problem of the personality manifestation, we should start with the fact that it is obvious to everyone that any person is different in lifestyle and behavior from even the most highly developed animals.
Therefore, every person from ancient times endowed himself and everyone else people, like him, with something otherworldly, calling it a soul, differentiating himself from animals.
This consideration, in particular, justified from the position of utilitarianism the fact that animals can not only be used as voiceless assistants, but also eaten, which indicates, on the one hand, that a person has self-consciousness, but, on the other hand, clearly indicates his animal, and even besides that, predatory nature.
This kind of eating, to the shame of a supposedly enlightened and humane society, is still practiced, although in addition to the external similarity of primates and people, their behavior in extreme conditions, a 99% coincidence of the chimpanzee genome with the human genome was discovered, and their main difference from people is their attitude to their own environment, to which animals meekly adapt, and people try, besides, to adapt it to themselves, which in itself indicates the source of the formation of their personality on the basis of their existing natural individuality [1].
In addition, the undoubted similarity of person's habits with predatory animals indicates that person's acquisition of personality has not completely displaced his original predatory breed, which is confirmed by man's behavior everywhere, even in the cultural environment, and not only in the criminal strata of society.
These facts, if they do not prove the analogy of the soul of animals with the human, but testify to the fact that animals also have something like a soul, but somewhat different, or rather, truncated in comparison with the soul of a person.
Christianity, however, completely rejected the similarity between primates and humans, proclaiming humans as the image of God, unlike other creatures that could be cooked into a roast.
Unlike Christianity, Hinduism has the opposite opinion regarding other living beings, believing that in their subsequent lives, any living being could become a person. On the other hand, Hinduism believed that the human soul was immutable by nature, thus placing it in a passive position and, as a consequence, placing a person in a similar situation [3, p. 38].
Buddhism denies the independence of a personality, considering it unreal, and thus also introduced man into a state of passivity in relation to what was happening [4].
Christianity, in contrast to Hinduism and Buddhism, considers each person to be a full-fledged personality, capable of development in a wide spectrum - from mediocrity to genius, and considered animals to be the beings devoid of a personality [5], which is fully justified regarding animals, but not a person, since Christianity does not take into account that a person is nothing more than a semi-primate who has preserved his natural essence in the form of individuality, and this individuality is quite capable, and for the most part, as we observe in practice, quite successfully suppressing the individual both in the upper strata of society - the ruling elite - who shamefully despise the common people at whose expense they live, and these common people, who hate the elite, which rob and humiliate them, but at the same time do not miss the opportunity to break into its ranks in order to take advantage of previously inaccessible benefits.
Isn't this typical behavior of the primates?
Nevertheless, unlike the peoples following the institutions of Hinduism and Buddhism, which, in essence, brought the peoples covered by them to a long stagnation, a different interpretation of personality, although pragmatic, led the peoples professing Christianity, to comprehensive development with the formation in Europe of a special technological civilization with a highly developed culture, but with the predominance in it of an individualistic property arising from reliance on individuals, competing with each other, making it the most developed on the planet, but also brought this civilization with such isolated personalities that oppose each other in many ways, to collapse, which is currently happening with complete evidence.
The reflection of the approach to personality in European civilization without a proper assessment of the individuality of a person, inherited by him from primates, and the relationship between individuality and personality was most clearly expressed in the emphasis of personalism and Marxism on personality, despite their difference, which consisted in the fact that personalism believes it is possible for a person to assert himself as an personality in society and even to oppose himself to it [6], while Marxism reduces the essence of a person to a set of social relations, uniting his biological and social natures into a single whole on such a recently emerged basis as civilization and culture [7].
That is, personalism opposes personality to society, and Marxism merges it with it, not noting the main thing, namely: the external nature of the impact on a person and society of personality, which in fact is an external reflection of man's self-awareness, forgetting also about the natural essence of a person in the form of his individuality.
A deviation towards personality or individuality, which, moreover, are still understood incorrectly or are considered synonyms, always carries a mistake, since it is impossible for a person to get rid of one or the other due to the fact that a person is a semi-primate, and the fundamentality of the action of one or another form of consciousness is determined to a large extent by time: the development of natural consciousness, inherited by a person from his ancestors, took place over billions of years, and the formation and development of self-consciousness in the form of its rudimentary forms in hominids lasted about two million years, and, more or less fully, took place only over several tens of thousands of years.
Therefore, the personality, in essence, is under continuous and strong pressure of individuality, which cannot be removed, which, in particular, led to the complete collapse of K. Marx's idea of humanity's ascension into the arms of universal goodness in the form of communism, despite the long and bloody struggle of the supporters of this attractive idea with its skeptical opponents.
Thus, the formation of personality based on the rise of self-consciousness to a sufficiently high level occurred relatively recently, when cooperation in the activities of hominids smoothly flowed into the altruism of self-awareness, which is the basis of the human personality, determining the meaning and nature of his activity depending on the content of a specific personality.
In other words, we can talk about the human personality only when his aversion to cannibalism, so characteristic of the animal world, has been determined.
At the same time, the natural consciousness of a person, reflected in his individuality, has not disappeared anywhere.
Moreover, it, disguised by the veil of a rather prosperous existence of a person in civilization, breaks out at any moment in the event that this prosperity disappears - hunger, wars, natural disasters. Then a person turns into a beast-like creature, capable of destroying everything around him for the sake of individual self-preservation in accordance with the animal egocentrism of his natural form of consciousness without any thought about the consequences of this action for society, which can be fatal.
At this, the negative personality traits also make a significant contribution to such human behavior, which is perfectly illustrated by the phrase of Madame Pompadour: "After us, even the flood."
*
The lack of understanding of the duality of consciousness of a person with an unshakable foundation in the form of such form as his natural consciousness - the legacy of primates, without which no person and, therefore, personality is capable of existing, leads to unceasing disputes, the essence of which boils down to the fact that some claim that parenting forms a person, while others prove that parenting only masks the innate character of a person.
In reality, both are always manifested, but to varying degrees, although the basis of human behavior, which is perfectly demonstrated in disaster situations, is the natural form of consciousness.
Intuitively, this was felt by the Christian church, which believes that the original sin spoiled the nature of man, deviating him from the covenants of God.
Science, in the person of a number of its directions, has not yet realized this, introducing purely one-sided explanations of human behavior.
One of these directions, for example, positivism, describes a person as a complex organism in a series of similar organisms with morality.
The other (Nietzsche) reduces a person to a failed animal.
The third (existentialism) proves that in a person his separation from the general laws of development is realized.
The fourth (structuralism) saw a person as a function of fundamental social structures.
Similar one-sidedness can only surprise, illustrating a complete misunderstanding of the duality of the human consciousness, which, for example, led Hitler - a follower of Nietzsche - to a total war for the destruction of, in his opinion, semi-animals for the sake of the manifestation of the only worthy and accomplished non-animals.
The interaction of the natural consciousness and self-consciousness, which was interpreted by Jung and Freud as the interaction of the unconscious and the ego, respectively, also appears extremely one-sided.
In particular, Freud believed that the unconscious does not contribute anything useful to the ego, as a result of which the task of the ego is to tame the unconscious and control it [8].
Jung believed that the unconscious can enrich the ego, and therefore the ego must adapt its actions to the needs and desires of the unconscious [9].
In reality, the natural consciousness and self-consciousness in a person are fused together, but nevertheless, due to the fact that they act in accordance with different programs prescribed in the genome, certain life situations manifest them in different ways.
For example, in the extreme situations a person does not have time to think and acts in accordance with the decisions of his natural consciousness, while in a calm and safe situation a person can use the capabilities of his self-consciousness to regulate his own behavior based on a leisurely mental assessment of the situation using not only the knowledge and skills he has acquired, but also relying on the moral values he adheres to.
That is, in the human consciousness there is a shift of consciousness towards the program of the natural consciousness or towards the program of self-consciousness depending on various external influences on a person and the levels of the natural consciousness and self-consciousness achieved by him, the weakness or strength of which leads him in life. However, the tasks solved by the natural consciousness and self-consciousness are usually opposite, due to the extreme egocentricity of natural consciousness, unchangeable in its essence, and, to a certain extent, the altruism of the human self-consciousness.
Therefore, there is no taming of the natural consciousness by self-consciousness according to Freud or enrichment of self-consciousness by the natural consciousness according to Jung, but, as a rule, their confrontation occurs due to the difference in the tasks to be solved, changing to coordinated actions mainly during periods of extreme situations, when it is necessary to use all available resources in order to get out of a peak situation.
The task of the natural form of the human consciousness is self-preservation and, preferably, dominance in own surrounding.
The task of self–consciousness of a person is to influence one's own surrounding with the realization of not only utilitarian intentions, but also aspirations for knowledge and cultural improvement.
Similar contradictory of the dual consciousness of a person leads to the incessant struggle of these components of the single consciousness of a person, which are expressed externally in his individuality and personality.
The result of this confrontation is the accelerated development of both the self-consciousness of a particular person and the collectivist self-consciousness of the specific communities, thereby ensuring the corresponding development of all mankind, the pinnacle of which is the formation of civilization.
Therefore, it must be recognized that the most powerful driving force for the development of both a person and his communities is the interaction of the natural consciousness of a person and his self-consciousness, producing the development of the human communities with previously unseen acceleration, in contrast to the usual spontaneous activity of natural organisms, caused by unconscious dissatisfaction with the environment around them, capable only of organizing the slow development and complication of fauna and flora. The interaction of the natural form of consciousness and self-consciousness of a person and its results is examined in more detail in my work “The driving force and source of development of the person and his communities” [10].

Bibliography

1. Nisovtsev Yu. Why and how do personality and individuality compete in a person? 22.03.2022. Amazon [Nisovtsev Yury].
2. Nisovtsev Yu. Why and when did the industrial revolution begin? and precisely in Europe? 2022. Monograph “About the origin and manifestation of personality”. Chapters 4, 5. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: Amazon [Nizovtsev Yury].
3. Парибок А. В. Индуизм. Джайнизм. Сикхизм. М., 1996. С. 38.
4. Щербатской Ф. И. Философское учение буддизма. Жизнь Будды, индийского учителя жизни. Пять лекций по буддизму. Самара. Издательский дом «Агни». 1998. ISBN 5-89850-004-9.
5. Ответы Святейшего патриарха Московского и всея Руси Алексия II на вопросы газеты «Новости Эльзаса». Православие.Ru. Дата обращения: 20 августа 2009.
6. Knudson A.C. The philosophy of personalism. N. Y. 1927.
7. Бердяев Н. Персонализм и марксизм. «Путь». 1935. № 48.
8. Фрейд. З. Основные психологические теории в психоанализе. М. ФСТ, 2006. ISBN 5-17-036472-5.
9. Сознание и бессознательное. Сборник = The Portable Jung. СПб. Университетская книга. 1997. IABN 5-17-036472-5.
10. Nizovtsev Yu. The driving force and source of development of the person and his communities (Against L.N. Gumilev's passionarity). 2018. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: Amazon [Nizovtsev Yury].