Naturally, both approaches had their strengths and weaknesses; both were also inherently biased. The individualistic worldview, while granting more autonomy and maturity to individuals within the society, often did so at the expense of ethical considerations. This created extreme levels of egocentrism among the privileged few atop the social pyramid, perpetuating vertical hierarchies and exploitation of the weaker social groups by the stronger ones, sometimes as much as seizing control over the entire society. On the other hand, the collectivist ideology consistently upheld high moral values and proudly emphasized the priority of altruistic beliefs over financial gains. However, it also resulted in diminished individual autonomy and greater dependence in thought and action, suppressing the objective impetus for social progress by discouraging any individual development beyond the average level. This inevitably led to a standardized approach to personal growth, homogenization of individuals, societal stagnation, and ultimately, self-destruction of the society.

The confrontation between the two ideas and approaches has always been more or less fierce. Sometimes they coexisted without a visible conflict, but most of the time they were conflicting one way or another. The reason is they are actually two sides of the same coin – the human nature, split into two parts that form two opposing poles of the worldview, with all their strengths and weaknesses, which were reproduced again and again on the global scale throughout the departing historical period. As the society progressed, these opposing positions became more and more pronounced, crystallized as the positive and negative poles of a magnet, and today we are witnessing their ultimate battle.

If we look carefully, throughout history the West has always adhered to the first position; the second position was held by Russia and certain parts of the East and South. In most cases, the centers of power within society remained relatively unchanged, despite the presence of followers for both models in various regions. Although isolated parts of the global society attempted to adopt alternative perspectives repeatedly over the course of history, the deeply entrenched stereotypes associated with their respective worldviews endured. Consequently, these attempts often proved temporary, ultimately reversing to the established order. Nonetheless, they served as valuable lessons, providing insights and knowledge that proved beneficial in many ways.

How can we solve this conflict? Is there a way to reconcile the parties, or does one opponent have to beat the other? Who is right? What model is better? To answer these questions properly, we must first understand the logic of life in general and the logic of its development process.

To this end, it is only fair to remember the general matrix of life applicable to the development of the humans and the society, which contains a sequence of levels that must be mastered step by step, from the bottom up (see Table 1).

At each level, the individual and the society achieve a greater degree of development, improving quality of life in all aspects. These levels are hierarchical in relation to one another – each higher encompasses and defines all lower levels. During the historical period known to us, the humankind has consistently climbed up the lower four levels of life, passing the corresponding events, achieving the corresponding accomplishments, surviving the corresponding crises, which are especially acute in the transitions between the levels. The economy developed accordingly. Of course, the society is heterogeneous, and its different parts may be standing at different development levels, so the measurement should be made by the highest level reached by a significant part of the society. The global society is currently mastering the 4th level of life, and will soon have to transition to the 5th level. This is the current stage of life and the corresponding challenge of the times for all people and the society.