Monday, December 5, 2011

Alpha Mail: on terminology

King A fails to grok the essence of Sigma:
The criticism of your contrived alpha ALPHA beta BETA sigma lambda taxonomy will fall on deaf ears. I get it. It is pointless to rehearse every argument against it. Add to that the sycophantic groupie yes-men who defend Vox qua Vox, and the symbiosis of suck becomes unyielding.

So don't take this as a plea to shitcan the idea, if only because I am self-aware enough to know the futility of persisting in making fun of you for importing this Sci-Fi D&D World-Maker tendency into a discussion of men. Shaming a mere nerd into shedding his nerdliness is much more plausible than attempting to counsel a Lord of the Nerds into a rejection of his assembled sycophants' obsequence.

How true and necessary, that our analysis must not be "tied merely to women." "Roissy's binary sexual hierarchy" is indeed limited and limiting for a general discussion of the social dynamic.

But this isn't a world of your imagination, this is the world I happen to live in, and you're not the dungeon master who can establish by fiat an entire mode of communication. It must be tested against and accepted by the field with whom you are trying to communicate, deficient in vision though they may be. The need for a term (much less an entire lexicon) must present itself before the term can be foisted on a discussion. When there is a need, and the need is met by le mot juste, adoption is rapid and universal. You can better convey your philosophy that the "binary" categories are not large enough to encompass the expansion to "socio-sexual" matters (a philosophy I share) without the attempt to rewrite the game glossary.

Roissy intuits this necessity and you do not. He sends up test phrases all the time. Some stick, some don't. But he doesn't persist using them if they don't obtain near-immediate currency.
First of all, it is important to understand the difference between Roissy and me. While we respect each other and have reached a number of similar conclusions about society, we are not the same and we have different objectives. Roissy is a prophet, and like all prophets, he has a Message and a Mission. I am not and I do not. I am merely an intellectual and a dilettante who happens to be sufficiently intelligent that some people find my way of thinking to be occasionally interesting or useful in some way. Ironically enough, this is a clear example of the difference between a social Alpha and a social Sigma.

The reason I extended Roissy's terminology is that it was necessary for me in order to think more coherently about the socio-sexual hierarchy that I observed in action. It is a matter of total indifference to me if anyone else decides to make use of it; I still think in terms of both omniderigence and the division of science into scientage, scientody, and scientistry even though many have adopted the former and no one has adopted the latter.

Whether others believe there is a need for a term or not is totally irrelevant. I perceive the need for it, ergo I coin the term so that I can contemplate the matter. Since I do an amount of "thinking out loud" on the blogs, I naturally make use of those terms. I wouldn't expect anyone to adopt the terms if they are not thinking about the same subjects I am contemplating since they have no need for them.

It's not that I'm unwilling to listen to criticism. If it is substantive and it is relevant, if someone can point out to me that I am missing something substantial about the observable hierarchy in social circles, then I wouldn not hesitate to modify my terms accordingly. But simply complaining about the way I think because you don't think it is necessary to think the way I do... that's not criticism, that's just white noise.

36 comments:

Toby said...

Seems like jealousy to me. You came up with another set of hierarchy that makes sense and he didn't. Hence his tears.

Anonymous said...

It's really not that difficult.

If all one is interested in is sexual hierarchy (i.e. interaction with women), then Roissy's binary system is sufficient. However, if one is interested in interaction with society at large, of which women is a significant subset, then a socio-sexual hierarchy is necessary.

Likewise, for purely sexual value/attractiveness, Roissy's looks uber alles system for ranking women is also largely sufficient. However, if one wants to rank women in terms of LTR/mate value/attractiveness, then more factors are clearly necessary, such as the "chaste/slutty" variable also proposed by Vox.

It's really not rocket science; it just depends on what you are trying to measure.

SarahsDaughter said...

Let me know if this makes sense or if I'm way off. When considering the concept of four temperaments, the Sigma appears to be the Alpha Phlegmatic where as ALPHA's are more likely to be Choleric/Sanguine (I have yet to meet an ALPHA Melancholy - but perhaps it exists). The phlegmatic is calm, rational, not the life of the party, and naturally easy to get along with although they maintain a bit of aloofness in that they don't openly express their every opinion/thought like the Sanguine does or Choleric needs to. Their darker side, though, is that while it appears they are grudge holders, if they have lost interest in dealing with someone, they are just done and don't give it another thought. Combine that sort of "callousness" with natural ALPHA traits and you get that darker Sigma sort of man.

Acksiom said...

You're way off. What you describe -- "if they have lost interest in dealing with someone, they are just done and don't give it another thought" -- is actually enlightened and responsible adult behavior.

People usually only characterize that, along with similar examples of pro-individual behavior in men and boys, as "dark" and "callous" because they want men and boys to keep self-sacrificing their individual well-being, safety, health, and lives in exchange for cheaper resources, infrastructure, manufacturing, defense, and so on.

So it's not actually "dark" or "callous"; it just contributes to the slow-motion derailment of our common sexist gravy train, and that's why some people characterize it negatively -- it invalidates and delegitimizes their demands of men and boys. Greater male self-determination, self-respect, and self-prioritization means less of a free ride for them.

Vox said...

I have yet to meet an ALPHA Melancholy - but perhaps it exists

I think ALPHA Melancholy is probably closer to Sigma than ALPHA Phlegmatic. For example, the idea of "losing interest in dealing with someone" is somewhat foreign to me, because there are so few people with whom I have ever had any interest in dealing in the first place, sans necessity, of course.

Or to put it another way, the Sigma's default setting is "ignore". One needn't do anything at all for a Sigma to have no interest in them.

And the dark ALPHA Melancholy concept is obviously attractive to women, it's another way of describing the Byronesque sexual persona. Roissy is a good example of ALPHA Melancholy; if you have read much of his work, you can see that he is much more a Sigma than a genuine Alpha.

Even his intense privacy is very Sigma. If he was an Alpha, he'd be on the college lecture circuit already like Tucker Max.

Anonymous said...

You would have to be very stupid to read Roissy and imagine his terminology is remotely close to complete.

Anonymous said...

Did he completely miss the LAMBDA marker in the hierarchy? Roissy didn't touch that one with a 10 foot pink penis pole.

King A said...

Vox wrote: "Whether others believe there is a need for a term or not is totally irrelevant."

This is a fine declaration of independence but completely thick-headed when it comes to communication, which by definition requires some acknowledgement of what "others believe" in order to be successful.

Anonymous wrote: "You would have to be very stupid to read Roissy and imagine his terminology is remotely close to complete."

Of course Roissy is incomplete -- he is incomplete as a man and it reflects in his half-baked philosophies. But the half that's edible is pretty good.

Vox is a man in full but his terminology kick squanders this website's potential. It feels like an intellectual sinkhole, energy drained away on nerdly conceits rather than the honesty and heavy lifting of hardcore dialectic. "Dilettant[ism]" isn't going to cut it.

I can see the case to be made for regarding you as precursor types: John the Baptist to Jesus the Christ, freie Geister preceding the √úbermensch. So long as you acknowledge your harbinger status and point the way.

Prick up your ears at mass this coming Sunday:

He admitted and did not deny it, but admitted, "I am not the Christ."

So they asked him, "What are you then? Are you Elijah?"

And he said, "I am not."

"Are you the Prophet?"

He answered, "No."

So they said to him, "Who are you, so we can give an answer to those who sent us? What do you have to say for yourself?"

He said: "I am the voice of one crying out in the desert,
'make straight the way of the Lord,'" as Isaiah the prophet said."

Some Pharisees were also sent. They asked him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ or Elijah or the Prophet?"

John answered them, "I baptize with water; but there is one among you whom you do not recognize, the one who is coming after me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie."


I call "not it." I'm on the casual dabbling vibe just like Vox. But the age clearly requires something more than "merely an intellectual and a dilettante."

King A said...

Toby: "Seems like jealousy to me. You came up with another set of hierarchy that makes sense and he didn't. Hence his tears."

This is a good example of the embarrassing level of criticism that is driving the "Alpha Game" website into desuetude and obsolescence.

The categories and the jargon are okay insofar as men (particularly white men) respond to that kind of comprehensive and minutely detailed expression bukkaked across the face of the internet. I refer often to this brilliant Steve Sailer insight that is very applicable to the limits of early-era game:

http://takimag.com/article/the_golden_age_of_white_male_antisocial_media/print

But what men require now is inspired leadership, art, literature, and example. Clearly people like Kunta Kinte above haven't the requisite imagination to make sense of the data in its present format, and alas, his type will be a necessary component for revolution.

The revolution is coming or is already here. The only question will be how efficiently it will achieve its ends without the collateral carnage that tends to accompany paradigm shifts. The contradictions cannot be heightened much higher much longer.

Toby said...

Now that is just plain verbal diarrhea.

Seriously? A 5 paragraph response just because I said "You're just jealous."?

The need for another lexicon was determined by an individual after observing that the original lexicon was insufficient to explain the real world.

Riddick said...

"This is a fine declaration of independence but completely thick-headed when it comes to communication, which by definition requires some acknowledgement of what "others believe" in order to be successful."

I think Vox's communication has been lot more successfull than yours.
Many people find these categories useful, where as nobody finds your babbling particularly insightful. Of course real life is much more complex but the hiearchy explains lot of my personal experiences and that's why I read this blog.

Yohami said...

Sigma is a dominant guy who doesnt play the ladder but has his own thing going on. It makes sense to me. I know a few. Alpha is the center of the social life of a group. If you develop the Alpha traits but dont develop the social circle = sigma. It aint a beta, it aint an omega, it aint... Why not use a word for it.

Toby said...

"Yohami said:It aint a beta, it aint an omega, it aint... Why not use a word for it."

Precisely, Yohami.

Since Alpha and Beta are not enough, there is a necessity for additional categories.

Orville said...

I believe that what Vox has done is to extend an accepted base class into a more useful model that better responds to the observable variables than the original base class. There, how's that for a nerd answer? Your binary approach is a hammer that sees every problem as a nail.

SarahsDaughter said...

That's okay, King A, many have claimed they won't sleep with Vox, you can too.

Vox, I'm curious as to your take on this: which comes first, your socio-sexual archetype, or temperament? And, can your socio-sexual archetype change your temperament as you move up the hierarchy?

King A said...

Kunta Kinte wrote: "Seriously? A 5 paragraph response just because I said 'You're just jealous.'?"

One paragraph reproduced the quote, a one sentence paragraph dismissed it, and the following three discussed a matter I wanted to discuss that was only tangentially related to the critic's retarded outburst.

Again. Vox attracts the quality of readership (and commentary and criticism) he deserves.

King A said...

Yohami wrote: "Sigma is a dominant guy who doesnt play the ladder but has his own thing going on. It makes sense to me."

Why not call him "dominant outsider" then, and save us all a massive google hunt (which would probably yield nothing, if anyone even bothers)?

Yohami continued: "I know a few. Alpha is the center of the social life of a group. If you develop the Alpha traits but dont develop the social circle = sigma. It aint a beta, it aint an omega, it aint... Why not use a word for it."

Look, I know the definitions make sense just like character classes/alignment distinctions/monster classifications in Dungeons and Dragons make sense within their insular context. I don't fail to grasp the potential usefulness.

The problem isn't with the usefulness of the terms to Vox and his fanboy groundlings. The problem is with fabricating an entirely new ethological taxonomy because one guy noticed a distinguishing characteristic (primarily of himself).

King A said...

Yohami asked: "Why not use a word for it"?

Because the jargon begins tilting toward a fantasy description of the author rather than a reliable language to describe the dynamic that applies to all social situations. The difference between "gamma" and "omega" is so refined and subtle as to be pointless. Or how often do you find yourself thinking, "That's so lambda of him"?

The only neologism of any use is "sigma" as you say, but even this is cutesy-wootsy. Yes, there are lone wolves outside of the pack, just as there are chickens and shrubbrush and beehives. Social ethology is about the pack dynamic. What use is there for "sigma" other than the author's desire to cast himself as the ruggedly independent hero beyond the need for a supporting cast? That's all very nice, but beside the point of our unifying analogy.

The pack is an analogy but it is a purposefully limited one. Human social interaction is several orders of magnitude more complex than speechless, instinct-driven canines. There aren't enough letters in the Greek alphabet to cover the classifications. So if we are going to expand the analogy beyond "leader," "follower," and "runt," you have to make a better case for the necessity of a term beyond the observation of a distinguishing characteristic. There are many distinguishing characteristics, and only a handful are truly divergent enough to be relevant to the social dynamic.

The misuse of ethology by Roissy et.al. opens up an opportunity to expand the discipline beyond the sexual. They have wisely limited the analogy to sex, appearances, mimicry, and female-response, not to any extended power relationship. The Voxonomy is a mutated hybrid between animal ethology and Roissian sexuality, and confusion abounds. If you truly want to take game beyond the mere sexual, you have to proceed by smaller, organic evolutions. Otherwise it collapses under its own weight. We are struggling just to get pussy-mad oat-sowers to see the implications of game beyond pick-up; we can't freight them with an entire sociology just yet. Men, especially young men, will not be frog-marched into enlightenment. But they may be nudged.

Now comes along a legitimate critic like Marcellus and his buddy (a few posts back), and his misunderstanding is increased because he doesn't know the secret codes. The point of this dialectic should be clarity not clubby obscurantism.

If it were a useful taxonomy, it would have been adopted more widely. The proof is in the democracy of the marketplace.

I respect what Vox is trying to do here, which is why he needs better criticism and not reflexive yes-men. I don't care nearly as much as the volume of my criticism may imply -- really, that's just my style. It's strange that this nominally iconoclastic sub-community operates on so stringent and stifling an intellectual hierarchy. And you want to talk about social dynamics beyond the sexual? Start with the example of this website. Free markets, free minds, y'all.

Degeneration into jargon and insider knowledge is a real problem for incestuous communities like these. You cease the ability to persuade and get comfortable in your own stagnation.

Yohami said...

King A,

I thought the same when I saw the Sigma thing. WTF - Vox is only creating this terminology so he can own a branch of Alpha.

Roissy´s taxonomy is the same (or worse because it became accepted), as in, maybe I cant become Alpha, but if I bang a bunch of women... thats all that matters!

Athol Kay, the same, a taxonomy that puts all the valuable / loving traits on himself (beta) and all the aggressive and bad stuff in Alpha.

And HUS is embracing whatever negative you can put on Alpha and whatever positive on Beta, like Athol on steroids. Alpha is bad! you know!

And then Im doing it too.

Stingray said...

YOHAMI and King A,

I think Vox is making a step in the right direction. What I find most intriguing is his Alpha (what girl doesn't, right?). Here's my point. I think of an Alpha as this:

"Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." Emerson's "Self Reliance"

My husband read me part of this essay the other night (I am keen to finish it, but I need time to get through something like this) and I have been trying to come up with an adjective to describe it since. I haven't found one. Awesome, in it's traditional sense comes close. However, we never see this type of man spoken about in regards to game and yet, to me, he is the Alpha who transcends it all. This is the man who women most admire and most yearn for if they are only lucky enough to catch a glimpse. But, when anyone dare to talk about him (at least at Roissy), he is dismissed as being dead/useless/ or, my personal favorite response: why should I aspire to that when there is no need? What's the point?

Vox seems to take game a bit further into what a man can aspire to be, not just how to get laid. I think that is why I spend time here. It's refreshing. YOHAMI, I think you take this even further than Vox does and you are quite good at it.

Anyway, please keep at it gentlemen. It's needed.

Toby said...

King A said...
Kunta Kinte wrote: "Seriously? A 5 paragraph response just because I said 'You're just jealous.'?"

One paragraph reproduced the quote, a one sentence paragraph dismissed it, and the following three discussed a matter I wanted to discuss that was only tangentially related to the critic's retarded outburst.


excuses. thinking that it is an outburst or even retarded speaks more on how "well" you comprehend anything.

King A said...
Again. Vox attracts the quality of readership (and commentary and criticism) he deserves.

you obviously have no idea what you are blabbering about.

King A said...
Why not call him "dominant outsider" then, and save us all a massive google hunt (which would probably yield nothing, if anyone even bothers)?

here's a newsflash for you: IT AIN'T ABOUT YOU.

and if you did bother to read The Hierachy or even asked the regulars you would not have done any massive google hunt for the term SIGMA.

Do you now even have a small hint on why Vox considered your "criticism" as white noise?

King A said...
If it were a useful taxonomy, it would have been adopted more widely. The proof is in the democracy of the marketplace.

failure in comprehension is also a common ground for saying no about something. another is little knowledge of it. if this blog is the marketplace, you and a few others are the only ones who haven't bought the new taxonomy.

Markku said...

I haven't found one.

That's because it is outside the scope of the socio-sexual hierarchy. Even an omega could be that, if he had been made such by the zeitgeist of his time. A gamma probably couldn't, though, because gammadom requires being factually mistaken.

Markku said...

Remember, the hierarchy is supposed to only measure one aspect of a man. It is not supposed to define a man.

Markku said...

It could even be argued that in a saner world, Vox would be omega. I mean, it isn't self-evident that exhibiting most symptoms of psychopathy is a good thing in itself. It is only made such by the preferences of women.

King A said...

Stingray wrote: "I think of an Alpha as this: 'Whoso would be a man must be a ...'"

Then why not take after Emerson and simply refer to him as "man"?

My point was, the ideas are the thing, and neologisms are worse than useless because they are motivated by something other than the idea, namely self-aggrandizement. As if to say, "Look at me, I am the Author of all things."

Which brings us to Emerson:

"He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."

Rubbish! Read from the catechism, not from The Books of Relativism. Or tell your man to. Emerson is a sub-Nietzschean precursor who fantasized about his godlike ability to redefine all things in accordance with his own will, or the Revaluation of All Values. This is folly. Demonstrable folly.

I understand the appeal to women, to sit at the knee of the Author, Teacher, Creator, and King while he (actually!) reads aloud to you in the authoritatively deep tones of the male voice. But if I could speak to your husband I would tell him he is being irresponsible and leading his woman astray. His folly will not touch you directly, but it will lead your family into hostile territory. His is the arrogance of youth.

"He ... must not be hindered by the name of goodness"! "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind"! This is mistaking willfulness for freedom, libertinism for liberty, relativism for truth. This is the postlapsarian condition to be vanquished by love, not preserved by self-regard.

"Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

"Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

"For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood."


-- 1 Cor 13

Keep commenting, Stingray, keep posting, keep reporting your intermarital progress. Your voice is unique and necessary and encouraging and persuasive. Even your casual remarks are worth ten of Roissy's mimics' or a hundred of Vox's toadies' (if he has a hundred).

Does your husband publish anywhere?

Stingray said...

"Then why not take after Emerson and simply refer to him as "man"?"

Too many people simply think of 'man' differently. Heck, even alpha can get confusing for people, but at least it is narrowed down quite a bit. I think it also has the potential to inspire more thought and discussion.

"Read from the catechism"

We have and we do. Remember what Emerson said about thought in that essay? I had some fleeting thoughts about what you said above while he was reading it, but dismissed them as I know our sense of goodness greatly goes back to the Church. In typical form I applied it to ourselves and dismissed it after that. Unfortunately, I have to poor over essays like this several times to understand them.

It did occur to me that this could be taken to the extreme and be dangerous thinking, but it seems that so many people are basing so much of themselves on the external, that this essay would be a place for people to start. I would rather they start at the Church, but at this point in the game I would take this essay too.

Alas, I did not know about Emerson redefining things for himself and was admittedly just moved by reading about a man looking into himself and finding there what he needed. It's rare these days.

"His folly will not touch you directly, but it will lead your family into hostile territory. His is the arrogance of youth."

Maybe. He is exploring and reading everything. He is growing. Are we going into hostile territory? I can't say. I don't think so. As I said before, we stand by the Church, but we won't know until we come out the other side what territory we entered. If it is dangerous, I can only hope that we learn from it.

Anyway, I am rambling. I always have a difficult time coalescing my thoughts when I read things like Emerson't essay and I readily admit I could be full of it. Writing them down like this helps, but I do tend to go around and around. I'll stop now.

Thank you for that passage from Corinthians. It's . . . difficult. More complete than Emerson's, more pure. Dammit, I am failing again. However, what I can say about it, Emerson's philosophy takes a great deal of courage. Corinthians demands much more.

No, my husband does not publish. He reads. We talk. That is about the extent of it.

As always, thank you.

Stingray said...

Aaaannnnddd, also in true form, my husband says in a couple of words what I was flailing at. Emerson at least has conviction.

And, to address what you said about the dangerous road, I can say with confidence now that is not the case. As with the paintings (in Emerson's essay), one must be able to discern artistry and skill, and then the painting must speak to him. One must educate oneself to discern the rest.

And to quote my husband "And anyway, I was only reading Emerson as I needed a break from J. K. Rowling." Yes, he's also hysterical.

kh123 said...

Ah yes; Chairman Day. Evil force that he is, forcing the whole of the www.proletariat to read the Short Course on Alpha. The Free Peoples of the West must put a stop to this, bringing down the Iron Curtain of the internets. For great justice.

In other news, I wonder what ever happened to JQP.

King A said...

Stingray wrote: "Aaaannnnddd, also in true form, my husband says in a couple of words what I was flailing at."

This is why I asked if your husband was part of the conversation anywhere. Communication between the sexes can never be as pure as communication between men; there is always an irreducible undercurrent of sexuality that threatens to override the dialogue. Teaching/learning/orating is an erotic act. Being aware of the undercurrent is halfway to neutralizing it. With dudes, rhetoric might turn into a pissing contest but the same-sex nature of the discourse precludes the possibility of losing oneself in the other (with non-deviants, anyway), as is always a potential, no matter how slight, between a man and woman. Game is always on.

Your husband should publish in these circles, if only to brag about you. He sounds like he has an interesting take on things, and we receive it filtered through your own unconscious biases.

Likewise, your great value is in speaking with other women, to testify that it's not so scary as the feminists say over there in the deep end of the pool. When I speak to you about your husband's (and your) ideas, the conversation is freighted with jealousy baggage -- and I mean "jealous" in the original sense of the word as vigilant and protective, not the connotation of envy and resentment that has lately become synonymous with jealousy. Anyway, I have long experience with righteously jealous boyfriends and husbands who never seem to truly get that I mean it when I say, "Bros before hos." At least at first.

King A said...

That said, Emerson's saving grace in the quote you provided was his injunction to "explore" whether that which goes "by the name of goodness" is truly "goodness." I'd still quibble with his attack on nominal goodness as that implies "self-reliance" in defining the good, rather than trusting primarily in what you are told and secondarily whether it comports with your well-formed conscience. That is a different prospect than trusting "at last" in the inviolate sacredness of "the integrity of your own mind."

Emerson would have plenty to say for manliness (alphatude) if we weren't already a narcissistic and solipsistic culture -- thanks in part to Ralphie boy himself. Yes indeed, we need betas to rediscover the manly ability to assert themselves, but wisdom does not therefore reside in the application of this impulse to the metaphysical things, which in the end yields Nietzsche's revaluation of all values. It is true because I assert it to be true. What is good is what is good for me. Or as Waldo puts it, "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men -- that is genius." NO! Relativism is the sickness of our age, seizing the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and assuming for ourselves (rather buffoonishly and pitifully) the prerogatives of God.

Your Lord and creator answered this manliness-turned-haughtiness definitively in Job 38*. What truly "self-reliant" men understand is the liberty of paying proper respect to those things we cannot but rely on: we did not create ourselves, we do not sustain ourselves, we are radically dependent on something other than ourselves. In an instant life can be snatched from us, we can be felled by accident or disease. You cannot escape this dependency by ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist! The most free a man can be is to acknowledge one's superior, and find liberty within his superior's parameters. You can be a manly first sergeant while saluting a boot lieutenant. The trick in this world, the world Emerson confines his observations to, is to rise above all the restraints of men, above all the prerogatives of petty "principalities and powers," usurpers of your one true King.

That freedom is rarefied air, concomitant with responsibility, and difficult to achieve and maintain. We are beholden to more authorities than we pretend we are. For women, this is how submitting to the right man increases her freedom; to the wrong man, her slavery.

The good news for Christians is that ultimately you need have no superior in the kingdom of this world since the advent of anno Domini. Such is the Christian liberation. The rules which keep us from transgressing our superior's will forms the high sturdy walls within which we may be free.

----------
"'If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.' They answered him, 'We are descendants of Abraham, and have never been in bondage to any one. How is it that you say, "You will be made free"?'

"Jesus answered them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin.'"


John 8
----------

Women grasp this more intuitively because they more readily understand the wonders of submission, whereas men bristle at the very idea (and women-admirers are suspicious of a fellow's manliness if he doesn't bristle!). Hence the attractions of Emerson's fantastical "Self-Reliance." Within a certain context his essay is a primer on manliness, but woefully incomplete at the point of greatest temptation: a man who believes himself to be so free that he mistakes the source of his freedom as himself, and thereby destroys himself. That temptation is the major weakness of "game" as currently proclaimed.

King A said...

* Job 37-42, or The Almighty Bitchslap

"The Almighty -- we cannot find him;
he is great in power and justice,
and abundant righteousness he will not violate.
Therefore men fear him;
he does not regard any who are wise in their own conceit."

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind:
"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up your loins like a man,
I will question you, and you shall declare to me.

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?

Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements -- surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

"Have you entered into the springs of the sea,
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Have the gates of death been revealed to you,
or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?

Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth?
Declare, if you know all this. ...

Then Job answered the LORD:
"Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer thee?
I lay my hand on my mouth.
I have spoken once, and I will not answer;
twice, but I will proceed no further."

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind:
"Gird up your loins like a man;
I will question you, and you declare to me.
Will you even put me in the wrong?
Will you condemn me that you may be justified?
Have you an arm like God,
and can you thunder with a voice like his?

"Deck yourself with majesty and dignity;
clothe yourself with glory and splendor.
Pour forth the overflowings of your anger,
and look on every one that is proud, and abase him.
Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low;
and tread down the wicked where they stand.
Hide them all in the dust together;
bind their faces in the world below.
Then will I also acknowledge to you,
that your own right hand can give you victory. ...

"Can you draw out Levi'athan with a fishhook,
or press down his tongue with a cord? ...
Will he make many supplications to you?
Will he speak to you soft words?
Will he make a covenant with you
to take him for your servant for ever?
Behold, the hope of a man is disappointed;
he is laid low even at the sight of him.
No one is so fierce that he dares to stir him up.
Who then is he that can stand before me?
Who has given to me, that I should repay him?
Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine. ...
He beholds everything that is high;
he is king over all the sons of pride."

Then Job answered the LORD:
"I know that thou canst do all things,
and that no purpose of thine can be thwarted. ...
I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees thee;
therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes
."

After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eli'phaz the Te'manite: "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."

----------
Humility -- but only toward its proper ends -- is the soul of game. The beta has perverted humility through its misuse and overuse. But within this virtue is the source of all strength since "the foundation of the earth."

Somboed said...

King A = Asperger's

Stingray said...

Humility -- but only toward its proper ends -- is the soul of game.

I would say humility is the soul of Man. At least the type of Man you and I are discussing here. Game might be a good start on the journey to Man, but I do not think it can bring one the whole way.

Likewise, your great value is in speaking with other women, to testify that it's not so scary as the feminists say over there in the deep end of the pool.

Maybe. I find that at this point in my life I do not have the patience to even read what these people have to say let alone have a conversation with them about it. I do spend some time over at Hooking Up Smart and very occasionally post there as the women and men have already started there journey away from feminism. But I find that they have found their own way away from it from witnessing the completely insane things feminist do and say. I don't think I could go to a feminist site and make any difference. They are so entrenched in what they believe that they would not get two words into one of my comments and completely shut down. They are their own worst enemies and are driving away people very well on their own.

Within a certain context his essay is a primer on manliness, but woefully incomplete at the point of greatest temptation: a man who believes himself to be so free that he mistakes the source of his freedom as himself, and thereby destroys himself.

I agree wholeheartedly.

When I speak to you about your husband's (and your) ideas, the conversation is freighted with jealousy baggage -- and I mean "jealous" in the original sense of the word as vigilant and protective, not the connotation of envy and resentment that has lately become synonymous with jealousy. Anyway, I have long experience with righteously jealous boyfriends and husbands who never seem to truly get that I mean it when I say, "Bros before hos." At least at first.

If what you mean is that you temper your conversations with me to protect me I understand and it makes perfect sense. As you said it will always be different talking about these things between a man and a woman vs. two men. I do not think my husband will be posting about any of this any time soon. He wrote something very briefly over on a forum at The Market Ticker but didn't pursue it very much because people just did their normal thing. NAWALT, snowflake, and "how can you possibly expect things from your wife?!" It was quite comical, actually.

Anyway, I do not offend easily but I truly do appreciate our conversations even if they must be a bit guarded. My husband reads many of your posts and I can't think of a single thing he has disagreed with. He only doesn't care enough about game to pursue it. I, on the other hand, find the whole thing utterly fascinating.

Jon R said...

"He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."

King A

There is irony in the fact that you are decrying the meaning behind Emerson's words, yet you rely on that same foundation of mindful integrity he is proposing we preserve. Recognizing the sovereignty of the mind, and appealing to its sensibilities is precisely why anything is communicated with faith that we will be understood, especially by "God". If anything the quote is a statement describing the imperative to understand goodness, which is the point of any metaphysical conversation, or at least discourse concerning ethics and values. Undoubtedly, the reason we engage in any sort of philosophical discourse, be it with God, people, or ourselves; is to preserve the integrity of the mind.

Emerson would have plenty to say for manliness (alphatude) if we weren't already a narcissistic and solipsistic culture -- thanks in part to Ralphie boy himself. Yes indeed, we need betas to rediscover the manly ability to assert themselves, but wisdom does not therefore reside in the application of this impulse to the metaphysical things, which in the end yields Nietzsche's revaluation of all values. It is true because I assert it to be true. What is good is what is good for me. Or as Waldo puts it, "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men -- that is genius." NO! Relativism is the sickness of our age, seizing the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and assuming for ourselves (rather buffoonishly and pitifully) the prerogatives of God.

Relativism is the consequence of the application of strict reason to metaphysical concepts. Once applied to values we recognize that it is nonsensical to state any ethical value as being fact (Wittgenstein). Therefore, the value then must be created BY US (beings with imagination) within the sphere of metaphysical reality. Hence, Nietzsche's revaluation of all values is simply a statement that, yes indeed, we are the creators of value. Attempts to elevate moral pejoratives to the the realm of God, is our ultimate expression of imbuing values with authority and the closest we will ever come to elevating any morals to pure fact.

All of the prose, and persuasive language that we use to convince one or the other of this or that value, is in actuality the act of creating values. Discourse that attempts to establish metaphysical authority over the moral lives of men, is in fact the the authority itself. NO. GOD. REQUIRED.

So in a way I agree post modern relativism is abhorrent, it undermines any attempts to establish authority, justice, etc. Worst of all it undermines the same reason and logic used to explain itself. However, even after considering all of this we are left with what we had all along, and ultimately the only thing we can rely upon. Our own judgements.

Good night

Jon R said...

"He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."

King A

There is irony in the fact that you are decrying the meaning behind Emerson's words, yet you rely on that same foundation of mindful integrity he is proposing we preserve. Recognizing the sovereignty of the mind, and appealing to its sensibilities is precisely why anything is communicated with faith that we will be understood, especially by "God". If anything the quote is a statement describing the imperative to understand goodness, which is the point of any metaphysical conversation, or at least discourse concerning ethics and values. Undoubtedly, the reason we engage in any sort of philosophical discourse, be it with God, people, or ourselves; is to preserve the integrity of the mind.

Emerson would have plenty to say for manliness (alphatude) if we weren't already a narcissistic and solipsistic culture -- thanks in part to Ralphie boy himself. Yes indeed, we need betas to rediscover the manly ability to assert themselves, but wisdom does not therefore reside in the application of this impulse to the metaphysical things, which in the end yields Nietzsche's revaluation of all values. It is true because I assert it to be true. What is good is what is good for me. Or as Waldo puts it, "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men -- that is genius." NO! Relativism is the sickness of our age, seizing the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and assuming for ourselves (rather buffoonishly and pitifully) the prerogatives of God.

Relativism is the consequence of the application of strict reason to metaphysical concepts. Once applied to values we recognize that it is nonsensical to state any ethical value as being fact (Wittgenstein). Therefore, the value then must be created BY US (beings with imagination) within the sphere of metaphysical reality. Hence, Nietzsche's revaluation of all values is simply a statement that, yes indeed, we are the creators of value. Attempts to elevate moral pejoratives to the the realm of God, is our ultimate expression of imbuing values with authority and the closest we will ever come to elevating any morals to pure fact.

All of the prose, and persuasive language that we use to convince one or the other of this or that value, is in actuality the act of creating values. Discourse that attempts to establish metaphysical authority over the moral lives of men, is in fact the the authority itself. NO. GOD. REQUIRED.

So in a way I agree post modern relativism is abhorrent, it undermines any attempts to establish authority, justice, etc. Worst of all it undermines the same reason and logic used to explain itself. However, even after considering all of this we are left with what we had all along, and ultimately the only thing we can rely upon. Our own judgements.

Good night

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.