Personality

We all Have A Face

That we Hide away Forever.

THE STRANGER

Billy Joel

This word confuses some people, and rightly so, the personality can be seen by some as their true self and others as their mind, their ego and so on. It is ironic that the root Greek word persona relates to something we put on and in Greek dramatic plays the masks donned by participants were known as personae. The personality is our outward person (whatever that maybe) as seen by others, turn it around and from our view it is how we believe others see us.

Like Attitude(ego) and Mind(thought) and Everything,

the Personality

Evolves!

Actors have the psychology of personality as a trained skill. Here we can see the process in action. Firstly the actor finds the role to play, inspired by any motive, desire or connection. Then applies the mind to the task of analysing the part in relation to script (environment) and other characters (relationships). In doing this the actor acquires a "feel" for this role, gradually applying their experience and expertise until they feel the character is whole and known to him or her, they then take on this persona. We are all capable of this. We can also "put" on characters and act. We can act out emotions, speech patterns and body language. It is possible for us to deceive others with all our outgoing signals.

We can look at the personality as the result of the relationship of attitude and mind, it is the outer skin of the onion so to speak. How we feel and how we think can determine your present personality but sometimes they both too are overridden by something else...what makes someone say, (" I let down my guard")....As stated previously about having control or maybe no control over mind and attitude (ego). Another example of transmitting unconscious signals that manifest in our behaviour are what many call idiosyncrasies.

The connection between the three: personality, mind, ego is something we try to separate, differentiate. But no, we find we can only differentiate in relation to each other. They are 3 layers that support and permeate each other (actually there just one thing under a few aliases ...read on).

Can we say that to know our outer "self" or outer reality (through analysis or via experience) we need a mind (brain). To survive all this and improve, evolve or grow the mind has to be "read" or interpreted into some coherent meaning to the Big picture. To relate the inside to the outside and vice versa requires an attitude a manifestation of our ego. A sense of self? an essential survival skill? Indeed it is mans motive and the success factor for his "ongoing" domination of the survival skills industry...(for he asks "what tomorrow may bring").

If the mind and attitude are parts of us....and not the real you....who is operating you, or better still who is "overseeing" all this?...and who questions it?...who is the master who makes the grass green and the sky blue?

So what is it that "sees" the universe, that looks out through my eyes. Is it the same thing that looks out your eyes or her eyes or his eyes or its eyes?

...what makes someone say " I must have been outta my mind" or "I went off my head" or "sorry, I was miles away" or "i don't know why i feel the way i do". What makes us fall in love?

Have you ever notice that it doesn't matter where on this planet you are from, or even if you don't know language or speech. No matter what time in history or from what background of circumstances, that laughter and sorrow are expressed exactly the same way.

Raphael

Seeks No Reward

Nor any Acclaim.

Thrills in our Joys

Cries in our Pains.

The Rapture of Laughter

Bears, Almost, It’s Name.

For in its Anonymous Will,

Inspired Heart

and Modest Mind,

Came,

Like Us,

And Took The Blame.

Tomas

The Evolution of a Personality

Leaders have Learnt to Stake Their Life on Their Personality

First it was brute force and brawn that started the human race way back whenever. The toughest and more robust tended to rule the roost or pecking order. Naturally men could impose their will, on women, children, and through crafty exhibition or outright aggression, on other men.

Then mankind moved to some rudimentary tribal existence, naturally, there is safety in numbers. Brawn combined with cunning was the requirement. As the social environment evolved man moved into larger cliques and conclaves of affiliation (e.g. by blood or by skill or "trade" and by forces we are still unaware of) ... Not necessarily the best brawler ruled as before, it was now possible for a conspirator to gain support (through all the tricks we still use today) and with sheer weight of numbers knock off the "Top Dog" or render them useless.

Leaders by the time of recorded history had to become slightly more sophisticated to survive and those who didn’t get with the program had short careers. "Rulers of men" had to learn how to keep every bastard happy. By the time of Gilgamesh (about 3500 B.C) city life brought on more necessity to "wise up". So, Rulers and the like, as well as being an above average "headbanger" (warrior) also had to be pretty "brainy" (astute) as well.

There was another aspect developing to "rulerhood". Call it intuition, gut feeling, sixth sense, something like that anyway. Although this had always been an aspect of leadership, this ability to get on with other powerbrokers was now becoming the difference between survival or overthrow for leadership inclined typed human beings. The leader had to select good men and women around him as treachery by experience lay at every door for kings, rulers and such. He or She had to be good judges of character and have a certain vision for their role. Some leaders chose to be absolute paranoid tyrants over this and acted accordingly. The are well recorded cases where tyrants went to the point of assassinating members of their own family including sons and daughters. But as per usual the bad guys hardly ever win and some of their exits to here yonder are just as blood splattered as their deeds.

The best ploy for leaders to control and appease opponents and the masses was to take on the role of Chosen by or Born of God. Being a deified religious and political head of the people in which "Divine" retribution lay at the hand to any conspirators was a great political weapon. Unless of course, the challengers too, had some Deity in their favour and if you didn’t you could invent or reinvent one. This exists in modern tribal societies, and was the core criteria for maintaining a powerbase in any political medium of that time that exercised totalitarian power.

Polytheism was a political necessity at this time in human history and each god had their day in Sumeria, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome and any other Pre Christian cultures. Naturally some intelligent bastard would work out that being the Godhead of a one god religion would give a lot of power, order and control. Hey and what if you made it look like any challengers to that "GOD" were aligned to a "DEVIL" and would be eligible for a dose of divine retribution after Death, such, like in hell ....Then you have a successful formula for a longer stint in the drivers seat. Even better why not even make it a perpetual kind of slapstick dynasty of god's chosen prelates and we're in our comfort zone.

Monotheism amongst conclaves of humans had at times been the norm in mankind's distant past, but the political cycle defined above creates challenges to that deity, therefore a cycle of polytheism becomes the norm. Eventually after a long drawn out battle, one faction wins and its back to monotheism again and so the process goes on. This is why Judaism, Christianity, Islam and even Buddhism have fragmented into factional denominations.

Things never change, except the names

Thomas

Other than the Pharisees, a Roman Emporer Constantine, was the first to cotton on to this monotheistic powerplay and of course Judaism, Islam and Christianity are the only monotheistic Faiths (they don’t tolerate any other).

Now, it didn’t take long for others to get the picture. This new church didn't allow any competition, it was off to hell with any challengers, even if the church happen to push that timeline forward for you a bit. So the catholic church was born and took many years for others to "realise" (in a material sense) the fruits of this "lets start a church thing". Other than the events in "Persia" and across North Africa in the 7th Century A.D, it wouldn't be until the 16th century that a spasmodic 300 year war in Europe would see a myriad of christian churches begin to grow. By the way, people are still inventing new ways to start a church!

Anyways those well organised catholics, they did sorta get the jump on everyone and were pretty hostile to any competition for about 800 years there between 400 A.D and 1200 A.D. Well the ol buggers have hung in there for a long time now and are still trying to kick some arse (woe unto them). You've heard of Archbishop Marcinkus and Roberto Calvi, haven't you?

The Democratic Jesus factor took many years to flow through to those who preached it. But soon (around 600 A.D onwards) another shift was evolving the leadership skill criteria. Leaders began taking on the spiritual ambassador of God role. It was time to not be so closely related to the "compassionate i do everything perfect type of god". This psyche culminated in the King-Land-The People genesis of Arthurian Legend. Here the leader personifies the people and the land and links this to his reign and does not going around trying to personify a God. Successful monarchies were being judged by the provision of prosperity for its people. Remember, prior to this leaders had proclaimed themselves sons of Gods, Gods Chosen ruler, and of course god himself or goddess herself. Leaders were learning fast "I better be a nice guy" or a least appear that way (e.g. Ronald Reagan). Leaders had to become more fallible and doing so became like all of us, after all, from the very beginning all leaders have just been another homo sapien on planet Earth. (e.g. Bob Hawke)

"if ya believe in Jesus, ya betta act like him".

The subtle difference evolved out of necessity, as the people being very godfaring, more intelligent had become more "unified" (solidarity, brother, gimme five) under the one God theory. Combine that with travel, trade and exploration, most human beings by the 9th and 10th century A.D had required and then acquired a distinction between reality and religious idealism. This can be identified as a rudimentary sense of democracy.

Though leaders were becoming victims of their own Godly invention it didn’t stop the catholic hierarchy from inquisiting any doubters at about this time. The church reacted as it saw the writing on the wall ("damn the people don't believe our bullshit anymore!"). The efficiency of Christianity gaining control of larger populations and countries had not been without some positives despite being known as the "Dark Ages". The expansion of information, intelligence and the overlaying unity of the church stimulated a more questioning and moral consciousness amongst the masses and eventually the statesmen representing them.

The "king and the land and the people are one" ideal was to evolve to the point that its abuse particularly in the western world would bring the leader and his associates into question and even to death (e.g. Charles I). More so, if some Machiavellian opportunist could use a circumstance or legislative precedent to get his chance to call into question a rulers judgement or belief system into question, he would. To leaders the spiritual linkage made the rocks much more slippery so a watering down of the Godly connection was necessary. In modern western politics it is suicide to profess zealous religious faith in the political debate, especially if going into an election.

Areligious (does not demonstrate religion) is the best way to be seen.

The evolution continues, on to Magna Carta (symbolic only), the agreement to Parleyment, the freedom of thought and increased knowledge (exploratory and scientific) in the Renaissance, the questioning of spirituality and faith in the Reformation and the social and political awakening of the Age of Enlightenment. The unification of European identities, Holland, France, Denmark, Prussia and so on, moving on to the War of Independence in America. The U.S constitution being the next democratic signpost as consciousness moves ever onwawd to one extreme - the future.

The eventual extinction of "'Regal" rule in the Revolutions of the 18th century till now was apparent to the leaders of people way back in "Arthurian Times" - aprox 600 A.D . The struggle from then until now for the Regis' and Regina's of the past has been to stop the true essence of the Arthurian principle. Their job became to delay the inevitable. For they knew the day would come when "the king would personify the people because they elected the bastard".

Now the people through elections choose a leader to personify themselves (and funny enough some of these elected leaders do think they have Divine Right).

Virtually brawn has nothing to do with it anymore, its all mind and little bit of attitude. Since the middle of last century leaders in our western culture leaders had to show social values to gain assent of the masses (again Disreali and Gladstone make good examples). From this, is it possible to predict the next evolution of this phenomenon and what leaders will require to take society into the next millennium?

Instant Karma’s Gonna Get You - John Lennon

For individuals and mankind to survive, the same evolution of faculties of the "self "are required. It would be true to say that mortician's live longer than gunslingers. Though it may not seem like it, we are all becoming "truer" to our inner "personality". We are all finding the same formula is true though each has our own circumstance to apply. It s a long slow process, but there's nothing wrong with that, i mean we've got forever.

To deceive and misrepresent ourselves only complicates our lives, the detection network of the THE SYSTEM is at our doors in the way of Media, Government and Salesmen (like our own neurons). Those Guys runnin away from 60 Minute News teams can only make you laugh as the unscrupulous chase the unscrupulous.

In a not so private and not so simple world where relationships make or break you...the Honest "guy" wins the survival stakes (3200m Race for 4yo and up....apparently SNAGS is a late scratching)...and I think BOGART is topweight!

The point to made here, is, that the individual "personality" evolves through life in the same pattern as the global growth of mankind. Its a hologram. Human history is "our" history in allegory.

Who knows which is which and who is who...(Pink Floyd)

(To an enlightened soul the first "shock "is that all the other people on the planet are already enlightened and have been waiting for you! ya schmuck! -Tomas)

So what is it that sees the world, that looks out through my eyes.

Is it the same thing that looks out your eyes or her eyes or his eyes or its eyes?

Is it just one thing?

Living a million billion lives.