No, look: I mean “spiritual” very simply and literally. The Jews’ reversal of their enemies’ values was not so much a case of the former’s values becoming actually the reverse of the latter’s (which would make the revaluation neither a revenge nor spiritual: not spiritual, because values are a thing of the heart, not of the mind; and not a revenge, because it would not be premeditated, indeed, not meditated at all). It was rather a case of the former turning the latter’s values around in their minds, as a means to overpower the latter—by presenting themselves as superior after all.
Back in highschool:
Bit of a nerd that had the advantage of hanging with the cool kids in the smoking lounge.
I think another question that should be asked here:
How many of us have regretted not being an alpha male?
And from an evolutionary perspective:
Doesn’t not being an alpha male open us to the possibility of serving in a more shamanistic capacity?
All alpha males were once not alpha males - it’s a position that has to be won by whatever means (not necessarily some kind of physical duel obviously). I regretted not being alpha male, it sucked. I think there are many, at least on this forum, who claim they do not regret not achieving such a role - but that’s all one can really say to oneself when in such a situation. I think there is at least something underneath that knows this is just denial. Of course there’s worse things than making virtues out of an inability to win getting your way, but there is plenty to resent about not being able to win such a privilege.
You see it time and time again when males rage at other males who make them feel uncomfortable, and they make a vice out of the way in which they are caused to feel uncomfortable, and present their alternative way as virtuous - allowing them to justify their resentment/regret. Like-minded males in this respect band together and you get “alternative” trends etc…
Apparently being schizotypal is all you need to be a shaman. The evolutionary advantage is that you exploit deception to pass copies of your genes onto the next generation. You have a well respected rank and can bypass much command, and steal breeding rights - so on the whole it’s a pretty good compromise for a non-alpha and not too far from it, but still beneath it.
You don’t need to be isolated to be a shaman, though some are/were. You also have to have specific kinds of behavior, not simply what an outsider to the culture would call odd, but which is not considered odd in that culture.
I don’t know that shamans get more chances to procreate or how it affects their chances at all.
Or, really, share command. And many tribal cultures, say a good number of Native American ones, have a much more fluid sense of command. Compared to Europeans they were much less hierarchical, more individualist and skeptical of ‘command’. You had to keep earning it, it was fluid and context dependent and it generally had much more limited scope.
As far as I can tell from shamans I know they have more alphas then the average, both those in cultures that have had continuous shamanic traditions and those in cultures - say, Euroamerican - where they had to enter shamanism first as an interest.
I disagree here about it being deception, but that’s another thread.
You’re either born an alpha, or you’re not. It is not something you can learn, really. It’s a state of mind.
I am a Meta.
You might be either born with the genes that eventually cause you to become an alpha within the right environment, or not - yes.
But even if your gene-environment interaction affords you a tendency toward being an alpha, you still have to win it. That is to say, it doesn’t just fall on your lap from doing nothing - though it is not to say that you need to win some intergalactic superbattle either. You have to assert yourself in some way, and this is going to come easier to some than others. In a nice non-confrontational Western social group it probably seems like very little is being done at all when the right person earns his alpha role within a group. Something is being done, though it may not be particularly conscious. And it will always be by someone with the right genes for the environment. But it will not happen from birth, and it may not continue beyond the first social group you find yourself in.
In short, it’s really not as simple as you’re perhaps implying. What the hell’s a Meta? Are you beyond male? 
There are Alphas within a specific group. Then there are Alphas in the general sense.
So for example I’m kind of a stoic person in most scenarios, but since I played basketball in college, if I’m playing basketball, I will take over and be the Alpha personality if the people I’m playing with are not as good as I am, and that is usually the case.
The general Alpha would be the guy who is there playing with me, and while he is not the winner of the competition, he seems himself that way. Everything he does is to that effect. A true Alpha is simply always thinking that way, no matter that they are doing. They might not prove themselves to be the most superior in a specific setting, but they are proving themselves as superior in some way. "Oh I didn’t win, but I’m rich - and that is the true competition, isn’t it ladies?’ etc.
There are 3 classifications:
Alpha
Beta
Meta
Alpha is superior. Beta is weak. Meta is superior at being outside of those 2 categories. Meta is like Abed from Community. The Meta is important because an Alpha can’t be good at being a Meta, or, de-facto, they’re not being Alpha.
Is that your own classification? I can’t seem to easily find it anywhere else…
In the traditional classification, the alpha is currently dominant, betas are strong pending potentials, lower ranks can be labelled by going further into the Greek alphabet, and sometimes the lowest ranks are just called Omegas. Nowhere are there any Metas.
I can understand why you’d desire a term for a seeming outsider, but in the traditional classification these types are usually just some lower rank or other. In answer to this:
The thread is about alphas in the general sense.
So it’s not group specific as humans seem to often move much more freely between social groups. And in the general sense - in wider society - unless you’re literally self-sufficient and apart from all other humans at all times with no exchanges with them whatsoever, you are somewhere between alpha and omega and nothing besides.
What I’ve been investigating is whether, for all those who are sometimes “alpha”, are any of these people pretty much alpha be default - anywhere they go? And if so, are they philosophers? - with their alpha personality imprinted upon their philosophies?
Most seem to see themselves as either sometimes alphas or never alphas. Often the “sometimes alphas” will come out with some alternative classification like “lone wolf” or your “meta” - which just seems like a consolation for not being alpha in general, but at least being strong. I’d class all these as betas and below.
I perhaps don’t rule out betas in my search, especially since there do not seem to be any default alphas here - and if there are they seem to be particularly stunted philosophically. So perhaps it ought to be the “most alpha” philosophers who exist who I am looking for - these “betas and below” who are mostly denying having any rank at all…
…the point of all this being that I want to find somebody who is set apart from the lower rank masses, possessing exceptional creativity, but somebody who is able to successfully introduce their ideas within society through their natural dominance and clout.
Since this is turning into a somewhat difficult task, I have considered that alphas perhaps turn their dominance away from introspection and outwards toward people, and philosophers are unable to do so, so they turn their dominance inward to their thoughts - meaning the “alpha philosopher” would be an oxymoron.
I think Gobbo’s Meta is a good concept. To my mind, it describes a person who may be dominant but chooses not to assert that dominance over other people except in specific circumstance. An alpha, by definition, asserts that dominance, else they wouldn’t be considered an alpha. What of someone who is most decidedly not Beta, but chooses not to dominate things/people around them, nor allow themselves to be dominated by a dick-swinging Alpha? I see no consolation in being a Meta, I see an authentic individual.
This goes for all the genuine philosophers, for instance Homer, Plato, Bacon, and Nietzsche. I mention only the utterers of a “Word of an Aeon”, to speak with Crowley, as these are probably the ones you’d consider most alpha. They’re not really more alpha than the others, though. For what epitomises a genuine philosopher’s “alphaness” is that he does what needs to be done for the sake of the “further development” (see below) of man—regardless of whether that be “assertion” or “compliance”:
[size=95]The essential characteristic of the Grade [of Magus] is that its possessor utters a Creative Magical Word, which transforms the planet on which he lives […]. This can take place only at an “Equinox of the Gods” at the end of an “Aeon”; that is, when the secret formula which expresses the Law of its action becomes outworn and useless to its further development.
(Thus “Suckling” is the formula of an infant: when teeth appear it marks a new “Aeon”, whose “Word” is “Eating”).
A Magus can therefore only appear as such to the world at intervals of some centuries […].
This does not mean that only one man can attain this Grade in any one Aeon, so far as the Order is concerned. A man can make personal progress equivalent to that of a “Word of an Aeon”; but he will identify himself with the current word, and exert his will to establish it, lest he conflict with the work of the Magus [e.g., Bacon] who uttered the Word of the Aeon in which He [e.g., Descartes] is living.
[Crowley, “One Star in Sight”.]
The philosopher as we understand him, we free spirits—, [is] the man of the most comprehensive responsibility, who has the conscience for the collective development of man[.]
[Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, section 61.]
The most spiritual human beings, as the strongest, […] rule not because they want to but because they are, they are not free to be second.
[Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 57.][/size]
I’m fairly amazed at the depth of this thread and the general interest on the subject as it is still going. Me, I don’t put much weight on the subject.
Testosterone…
That’s because you’re really alpha, bro. Only an alpha would post to let others know how little he cares.
… is a wonderful thing.
Thanks for the contribution, it’s not like you have to care. I’m wondering why you said this at all though - perhaps you think you’re above all this dominance stuff and that this says nothing about your dominance relative to others, I dunno.
BS, you either assert what you want, which is going to affect others whether you like it or not - sometimes requiring them to put what they want on hold, or divert what they want elsewhere - or you are one of the ones who has to put what they want on hold or divert it elsewhere.
If everyone was assertive, wishes wouldn’t all be miraculously compatible with one another. If nobody was, our species would just die out. Gobbo’s “meta” or your “authentic individual” is just another guy who has had to learn to withhold what they want around more domineering individuals, or “dick swinging alphas”. What’s so wrong with dick swinging? - are you too refined and deep to push harder to get what you want, even if it means asserting yourself to a significant extent? The two aren’t incompatible - the dick swinging can help act as a tool to turn more attention to your own depth and refinement… though often in practice it is just vulgar and shallow - I’ll grant you that.
I do see a semblance between what you quoted and genuine philosophers, that is of course the intention. I don’t know about Homer and Bacon, Plato would probably have been fairly alpha because of his social rank - being used to command and growing into it amongst others who had likewise grown into such a role. Nietzsche though? - he was a sickly weed, and though I regard him as the utmost genius, that’s simply not enough on its own to indicate alphaness. His social discretion was admirable, but I think his works will forever be reserved for the few - as was his intention, obviously because he was searching for others in his own image.
Okay, edit
In conversation this all holds up quite well, but take it outside. I’m not trying to say that dick-swinging isn’t necessary sometimes, but I don’t believe it’s in the best interest of our species for people to be cut-throat. I think it’s wise to consider that there are going to be occasions in life in which a person needs to push their own agenda, but there are also going to be times when it’s best to follow someone else’s lead, and that consistently acting on one of those extremes is probably unwise.
Na… I just look like I’m alpha, in my current pic lol. For fun. It was 80’s night, so I thought I’d post here. Anyways, its not about me telling everyone how little I care, my statement is looking for insight as to why others care so much about it 
I assure you I am a lone wolf, neither following or leading, (or at least that’s what I’d like to think)
Exactly. As I said in my first post in this thread, only the former is an alpha.
Hey, didn’t catch you fast enough. I did an edit, check it out. I posted that bit, got up to get something to drink, and realized that wasn’t what I wanted to say 
Nietzsche probably suffered from a brain tumor or, if you prefer the popular tale, from syphilis. That he was able to write what he wrote attests to his strength. Anyway, you still seem to think that an alpha male must move the masses directly. This is not the case. The masses always need “shepherds”, i.e., men who direct the “herd”. And if such “shepherds” of “sheep” are alpha males, then “shepherds” of “shepherds” must be, like, alpha alpha males:
[size=95]Order of rank: He who determines values and directs the will of millennia by giving direction to the highest natures is the highest man.
[Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 999, entire.][/size]
Compare the “devisers of new values” we discussed earlier in this thread. All the great philosophers are or were such “shepherds” of “shepherds”.