To build upon my previous entry, I myself do not subscribe to the popular culture definitions of people, terms and assumptions such labels spawn. Rather, I seek to either find and understand the correct definitions, or barring reasonably logical, proper or concise explanations, I then seek to build or assemble my own for the sake of personal clarity. Once internalized I then seek to share my understanding and theories with others who may be willing to accept my efforts.
As such, I will here and now explain my chosen moniker for this blog.
In the wildly inconsistent definitions of male personalities and the both the alleged power hierarchy, and the actual more dynamic hierarchy that emerges, the Sigma is the one that has been most recently defined, and in my personal observations and opinion, the best defined, even if most widely published definitions are somewhat limited in their scope. Which is something I find to be rather ironic, given the potentially limitless and fluid nature of the Sigma Male, as I understand and lay claim to it.
In simple terms (that I will later expand upon) the Sigma Male is at his core, consistent (as most males tend to be in varying degrees) steadfast, yet highly adaptable, insightful and possibly above all the most dangerous to an established order that demands rigidity.
The reason for this is that he is to a great extent, all things to all people. He can lead and manage like an Alpha or Beta, he can serve like a Gama or Zeta, he can rebel and destroy like a Delta or Alpha or Beta, and he can do so either by mimicry, broad based knowledge, or actual mutability.
His greatest strength lays within both his ability to adapt, and to not let things effect him too deeply or barring that, linger over him for too long, while still remaining utterly true and resolved within himself. How rare a man is truly that now and days?
Wherein the Alpha simply tanks damage, and the Beta takes it and adjusts or compensates for it, and the others are forever altered by it, the Sigma may, in his own way, ignore or refuse it. Much in the same way a fictional character may use the "toon force" and simply refuses damage, the Sigma stretches and bends, molding himself in such a way to rebuff incoming damage, or reflect attacks or takes them for his own and uses them as a tool of convenience to achieve his goal. To the frustration and confounding of his adversaries, and the confounding females everywhere.
Now by no means am I hinting at the summation that men fall into a single definition, this is both foolishly ignorant and limiting, yet by it's very definement, the Sigma is the closest label to being a "one size fits all" moniker for most, if only because even Alphas can be cowards, Deltas creative, Betas leaders, and so on and so forth. As many a student of both History and Psychology has no doubt noted both aloud and in writing, people are rather complicated, messy and strange.
People are as a rule, much more than would be obvious on first or second glance or meeting, and while we as humans are composed of basic and straightforward parts, foundationally at least, we are also composed in ever changing and evolving ways, intricate and layered, some parts unyielding, others elastic or fluid, some permanent, others temporary, as is befitting our evolutionary history and the fundamental neurological architecture that is the basis of our innermost physical being. It is this which may somehow, subconsciously affect the long held notion that males embody the highest ideal of of the near limitless potential of humanity, for both good and ill.
Certainly, history is bursting at the seams with examples of both shades of that seemingly ever expanding gradient, and it is with rare and rather noteworthy (not in actual reality) exception we find the majority such persons are male. Females while equally limitless and grand as well, for some reasons seem far less predisposed to the far reaching and wide ranging "it" that compels males to do what they do at the levels and to the extent that they do.
This of course only underscores, for myself at least, that ever present question that has in some way or another defined human existence, the question embossed upon our very souls; why?
Why do some people example such extreme behaviours?
What is it that leads to such wonderful acts of kindness, of trust, of charity and of love between some people, contrasted with such incomprehensibly brutal acts of aggression, hate, anger, betrayal, exploitation and apathy?
And why do so many others example such mild variations of mediocrity found in between?
This quandary, I think, transcends mere concepts of civility and savagery. If only because with the concept of Sentience, the concept of morality and ethics will eventually follow, if only due to the realization and reasoning of self-interest, and comunal impact, born out by the capacity to postulate and estimate or at the very least, imagine a possible future outcome.
We are able to quantify the trade off of sacrificing the now, of trading against today, for the benefit of tomorrow, of providing some lessening of the struggle for tomorrow. We do in fact, daily bargain with God, or at least maybe his creation, and for good or ill, right or wrong, males bargain directly, almost totally by default, and females bargain by proxy, as if by force of genetic habit, and their default advocate, is simply put, males.
This goes far beyond the simple stashing away of resources during times of plenty for times of lean. It instead speaks of a deliberate effort to wrangle nature into a more favorable state, within it's own rules of course, as all living things are subject to the inescapable promise of the cycle of life and death.
This all culminates into a matrix of input and output which is driven by the engine of causality, that deep dark question of why, battling the instinctive impulses, the reactions born of pleasure, and pain.
It is why the duality of humanity is not in fact that of good and evil, old, deep and necessary monikers born of a need to reinforce and define ourselves, but rather of darkness and light, or more to the point, instinct and reason, emotion and logic.
It is this, at it's core, that has been defined by almost the totality of human existence, and it is this, that is under attack by a dark, dishonest and illogical ideology which seeks to, almost literally, dehumanize us all in that most insidious of ways, not directly and up front with brute force, but subversively, by way of undermining our hard won and long established methods of reasoning.
In a way, by proxy.
More on that, at a later time.
Understanding this distinction is (or should be) paramount, for when we can accept the differing of perspectives, we can better understand them, and this most effectively comes, in my own observations at least, by way of understanding the why behind such distinctions, just as much as the how.
Only then can we properly frame for ourselves, the definitions needed to build a more rounded and higher functioning understanding and perspective of self, and by extension, a more advanced worldview.
However, as I have learned, and as I will soon share with you in the coming posts, nothing lasting may be gained without first giving up something of approximate value.
Candidly speaking, this all comes at a cost.
Somehow, everything costs someone, something, every single time.
It is by this metric, that we must first define, and then redefine things so that we might understand what and how they are, and just how little we can actually do to change them, without first altering ourselves in some way.
No comments:
Post a Comment