I don't know what to write about, but I got to write about something. Or do I? Well - I guess ... I might write
about that then. It might be overdue at this point.
It would seem, often enough, as though ... knowing things better is some kind of curse. It's like ... people don't
take kindly to an individual that presents a degree of wisdom or knowledge that is above their own. Or at least -
the most dominant "Alpha Male" in the room - which, granted, sets the bar pretty low most of the time - and that
also does actually explain a lot.
About Alpha Males and the such
Now - I don't want to come off as someone who doesn't believe or think that there's something to this
whole nonsense - though certainly as someone who flags it as nonsense; Thus: Being a real Sigma through
and through.
See - the whole Sigma thing ... it's nonsense too. The issue though is that these are words - and words
contain ... or "contract" meaning depending on their usage - hence becoming a part of language ... or
'lingo' - and 'lingo' in that regard vaguely describes a worldview. And 'Sigma' in this sense is the
'intruder'. Or, something for people like me to describe themselves by their perspective - although the
term might be defined differently.
So - I've recently learned, it shouldn't be surprising, that there are two versions. One is for men and
the other is for women. In polite terms, the male is about dominance and the female about assertiveness
or strength. Something like that. In impolite terms the male is about being an asshole and the female
about audacity.
So is the ladder from Alpha to Omega merely a descriptor of how individuals cope with aggressive behavior.
Claiming to be an Alpha is for the most part in and of itself already aggressive behavior - for men and
women alike - and respectively is the Sigma just the person that says 'nope' and after the Alpha's tried
to establish dominance still stand there pretty much successfully; Though sure - at least in movies that
boils down to a huge dick or clit measuring contest - while internally it's about being either the greatest
douche or the biggest cunt.
And that's basically all there is to it. It's an axis along which one might look at things. I personally
prefer TJ Kirks 5 types:
Other than that, I'd say that even just implying - seriously - that Alpha's are a thing, you're basically
a self-ascribed beta at best. Probably. While thinking that you're a Sigma. The whole Sigma thing may be
based on John Whick - but is in descriptiveness what little bit of independence and living there is in this
model. That is, while upholding that model those people fail to be a real Sigma - while maintaining that
Alpha's - a.k.a. "douchebag behavior" ought to rule the world. In that sense, Sigma's are merely "prophets
of Alpha" (which makes real sigmas false prophets, though real prophets - give or take - in as far as they
recognize the 'true' Alpha (and Omega)).
So, this kind of Sigma is a way to avoid the cuckoldry that is implied within anything else but "Alphaness";
As the whole thing is only a way of saying that you're either an Asshole or your fate is to get cucked by
them. Making it ... well ... an ideology. And as many ideologies have it - one might be under the impression
that it's just reality, raw and to the naked eye, but it's still just a manipulative framework that governs
that perception.
I mean - from my perspective, Mansplaining isn't a problem that only women face. I'm sure there are plenty of dudes
that do similarly yawn in sighful remorse upon how some representatives of the male sex conduct themselves. At least
does the concept of 'Mansplaining' occupy a spot in my brain that doesn't happen to a man versus women thing. Though,
maybe that's why I'm trans - because socially I've always been a woman/female though my physical appearance may have
made things a bit weird.
But, to be honest, I think that's more about men who generally have an attitude of making everyone their bitch.
Except ... around some democratic element to how social environments function.
Sidenote: Outstanding award for Outstandingness going to J.B. Petersson
For: Trying to debunk Climate Change with semantics WHILE (beratingly) psychoanalyzing the concept of
a generalized understanding of scientific knowledge.
But whatever.
Either way, knowledge itself - or whatever one might deem for knowledge - does have an effect on our psyche that we
might regard as "smugification". And yea, if not for anything else - Flat Earthers have given us a great deal of
insight into what is generally referred to as the Dunning Kruger effect. So will Flat Earthers be as smug when chanting
"Water is Level" as Globe Earthers will be when saying "Gravity" or such. There is pretty much no way around it - as
knowledge tends to be "as duh as it gets" to our understanding - where that "duh-ness" expresses itself through
gesturing that tries to say that one has hit bedrock and things don't get any more fundamental than that.
Knowledge is here however not necessary. What we would here call Knowledge - is more so 'the experienced reality';
And that is usually composed of a lot more than what can be tangibly verified. And for ages now, that topic has occupied
the minds of people. So, Plato's Cave for instance - as an older example - and the Matrix Trilogy as a more recent~ish
one. Though for the latter I suppose we're rather to look at this fabled book: "Faksimile and Simulacrum" - or what's
its name - which for the modern experience poses this question of "what if all our lived experience is gained from
artificial environments?".
So is there that expression - in German at least; Saying: "And it fell off me like scales from the eyes" -
implying some opaque crust that had clouded ones vision that has gone away. "The scales fell from my eyes" - would
probably what happened to a Flat Earther that saw Earth from Space - or whatever it would take. And this, on the flipside,
implies as much as that we maybe don't even know what scales are covering our eyes ... still. Or as the Bible puts it:
Remove the beam from your own eye before attempting to remove the splinter from your neighbour's.
The fact that I'm writing, sometimes, merely for the sake of it - is really just a symptom of 'my way of life'. I'm
sure it's fair to say it so. And there are a variety of related topics I want to write about. For once, or most
importantly, being more particular about what I think we may reasonably call "the way of wisdom" versus "the way of
dictation" - though maybe more pressing, ironically, is the matter of patience versus urgency.
So, that I sometimes write for the sake of writing - may around some edge be lobbed in with a distinct sense of
urgency. It certainly lends itself to some statements of putting efforts above substance. But that doesn't account
for the things I've written that I didn't or wouldn't publish. So, whether or not you get the urgency angle - it is
a concern here for me.
So - "once upon a time" - the whole writing habit was still somewhat new to me. And one night in particular, I found
myself somewhat restless. I tried to sleep - but couldn't and so I would write - and yet I was tired, so I was torn
- and therein I was confronted with a hypothetical. Something along the lines of "what if the fate of the world
depended on it?". So, yea - I would start to prioritize writing above everything, until I realized that all that sense
of urgency ... it ... didn't matter. All I did wouldn't really do anything but stress me. And so, I began to take things
a little more slowly. And then some more. And more.
And it was then, that I would at times find myself unable to sleep - and a weird itch keeping me up - that would only
get more intense as the ruminating on my mind went on - until I would just get up. And yea, at times I didn't actually
write about anything. At least once I was just watching a video and then went back to sleep. But that still stands
apart from - pressing myself to follow up on every thought that crossed my mind until deep into the night - leaving me
without enough rest to be fit the next day.
And yea. The story here isn't as simple. Every time I beat the night did possibly do something for me. At least a little
bit. But that doesn't say much about the quality. And to know 'when' to commit - is only practical when not being in
a state of constant committal.
So is this the story of a condition, where I'm sure there are plenty of arguments from multiple perspective that go into
one direction or the other. Same, I'd think, as on the matter of 'wisdom' versus 'authority'. And - yea, maybe the text
around this is clumsy, but - uhm:
On 'wisdom of God' versus 'authoritative Revelation from God'
I want to say that once God would dictate unto us a bunch of matters to observe, there is still the matter of
comprehension. The more vague or open to interpretation or dependent on knowledge or wisdom or faith a thing
were - the less 'simple' the matter is to convey, actually. Within the works of Jesus we then already find the 'jump'
as it were into matters of Wisdom ... with the mystery certainly being the 'how'.
How can wisdom ... bla-dee-blup. But, the matter in some sense is that on the one side we have contemporary situations;
And on the other the need to develop a practical understanding thereof.
And that's ... that.
And so - sometimes I just write ... as in order to catch Lightning in a bottle, sometimes you need to hold a bottle
to in the first place.