Last of the Old and Pre of the New…from the Progenitors and (the) Downsprings, our collective wishes for a year that you will remember…
With a New Year coinciding with ‘time for a new Post’ the temptation to write a 2009 in retrospect along with a what’s in store for the coming year Post was almost irrestible. Fortunately, I am resisting the temptation. As enjoyable as it would be to find amusing ways to remind you, our Readers about the high points of the last six months, worse, compound the indulgence by trying to describe future Posts, I am not going to do that.
I will do what makes me feel best, which is to remind myself of the original intent and core beliefs of this ‘thing of ours'(cosa nostra). One of the first rules was that anything that anyone of the original group (Progenitors and Downsprings) submitted to the Doctrine would be presented without edit or influence, spin or polish.
This rule has made for some ‘suspensful moments (‘jeez do you really need to call him that?”). But all has been rendered without edit or influence; to the benefit and credit of the Wakefield Doctrine.
Not totally without a sense of tradition, and given that most of our New Year greetings are from rogers, here is a little music. (a simple link so you can play the music and continue to read this Post).
So from some of us at the Doctrine:
Old lang syne (from Phyllis)I was going to review famous people who died in 2009, like Michael Jackson (probable Clark). However, I like to think of people that were a part of our circle.Big Andy and Hughie (definitely the best a Roger can be. Kind, and generous, and maybe a little too emotional).Al and Katie (the powerful force of a Clark, Scott duo)Russell (there is nothing like a Scott on your side). Quick little story: Most of our friends found out that I had cancer when I showed up Saturday night with a baseball cap covering a “patchy” hairdo. Most people shared a sense of concern and hopefulness. Russell came into the room. Looked at me, gasped, and yelled “Take off that cap.” As I did so, I had the feeling that Russell was going to attack my cancer bare handed. It was a very comforting feeling.“Let’s raise a cup of cheer. For auld lang syne”
To the Doctrine faithful;After having pondered both weak and weary on the notion of a year-end message, I’ll just say that I am most impressed with the calibre of people who get involved with stuff like this. To want to go to the trouble of reading blogs, nevermind writing for one, takes something quite special; as Clark will now attest to. You pull your hair out every few days, carefully re-attach it, and repeat. I have enjoyed it immensely, having little actual hair to be concerned over. And, have been made aware of the vast universe of blogs; people who all do this not because they have to, but because they must. A heartfelt salute to us all.To our newly found readers;As our ranks have grown, we have seen this project go in some really unique and intriguing directions. Thanks for your support and contributions, they make a world of difference, and give us an endless supply of new roads to venture down. So welcome once again, and please feel free to throw something up onto the Doctrine wall whenever the spirit moves you; it will definitely stick.– the Roger
About clarkscottroger
Excellent Post by all contributors today. It has been decades since I listened to Leo Kottke. His music compliments nicely my own personal new year reminisce/retrospective.
Excellent Post by all contributors today. It has been decades since I listened to Leo Kottke. His music compliments nicely my own personal new year reminisce/retrospective.
God forbid (this Post) is a harbinger for a ‘year of the roger’; don’t know if I am ready for that, even if it/he/she/they are an aspect of myself.
What the rogers are gifted with is the langauge of the people/of the masses. They naturally have a voice that can be heard by many, but every gift has a price. Rogers are ‘machine operators’, in the context of the Wakefield Doctrine this is obviously valuable, but can anyone tell us what the limitations of machine operation is?
(Remember this is about three, not one plus two others)
btw: is it me or does Leo there look just like Matt Damon?
God forbid (this Post) is a harbinger for a ‘year of the roger’; don’t know if I am ready for that, even if it/he/she/they are an aspect of myself.
What the rogers are gifted with is the langauge of the people/of the masses. They naturally have a voice that can be heard by many, but every gift has a price. Rogers are ‘machine operators’, in the context of the Wakefield Doctrine this is obviously valuable, but can anyone tell us what the limitations of machine operation is?
(Remember this is about three, not one plus two others)
btw: is it me or does Leo there look just like Matt Damon?
hey y’all. glad to be “indoctrinated” into the doctrine. happy new year and all that crap. can you guys believe it? another year down the tubes. they go by so fast. remember when you were a kid and summer vacation seemed to go on forever? now it’s just a blur with a handful of memorable highlights. it’ll be interesting to see what happens in 2012.
bty what the hell is it with all of those idiots who swarm in times square? pretty stupid as far as i’m concerned.
yeah he does look like matt damon.
sa to the limits of machine operation i’ll have to think about that one.
hey y’all. glad to be “indoctrinated” into the doctrine. happy new year and all that crap. can you guys believe it? another year down the tubes. they go by so fast. remember when you were a kid and summer vacation seemed to go on forever? now it’s just a blur with a handful of memorable highlights. it’ll be interesting to see what happens in 2012.
bty what the hell is it with all of those idiots who swarm in times square? pretty stupid as far as i’m concerned.
yeah he does look like matt damon.
sa to the limits of machine operation i’ll have to think about that one.
just a thought: the machine operations are limited by one’s self-perception and their environment. it is subjective and cannot be performed from the perspective of others (the clarks/scotts/rogers). however, it can be greatly influenced by them.
of the three rogers are the machine operators by virtue of their skill at assembling parts, manipulating variable, since the world of rogers is a world of a quantifiable universe.
what they (rogers) are not, is creative. that is the purview of clarks, who deal in the irrational.
the best illustration of the difference between the two is the case of musicians: rogers make the best musicians overall because playing an instrument is to manipulate variables (of a known quantity), there are notes written, follow directions. clarks as musicians are often not very sucessful at least initially because they do not follow the notes…
scotts are, of course, the ‘frontman/lead singer’ for this music metaphor, because ‘their job’ is salesman.
(clarks are the scientists, scotts are the salesmen and rogers are the machine operators)
just a thought: the machine operations are limited by one’s self-perception and their environment. it is subjective and cannot be performed from the perspective of others (the clarks/scotts/rogers). however, it can be greatly influenced by them.
of the three rogers are the machine operators by virtue of their skill at assembling parts, manipulating variable, since the world of rogers is a world of a quantifiable universe.
what they (rogers) are not, is creative. that is the purview of clarks, who deal in the irrational.
the best illustration of the difference between the two is the case of musicians: rogers make the best musicians overall because playing an instrument is to manipulate variables (of a known quantity), there are notes written, follow directions. clarks as musicians are often not very sucessful at least initially because they do not follow the notes…
scotts are, of course, the ‘frontman/lead singer’ for this music metaphor, because ‘their job’ is salesman.
(clarks are the scientists, scotts are the salesmen and rogers are the machine operators)
think i got too caught up in my translation and didn’t respond as it pertains to the wd. so from what you’re saying i’ll interpret it to mean that the rogers (machine operators) help to run a well-oiled machine (the wd?!). however, their gears, if you will, do not operate well without a set of a pre-determined variables/instructions that they can manipulate. and that is the limitation of machine operation. make sense?
No, no it does not. (keep trying…90% of sucess is showing up)
ok, i give up. either i’m over-thinking and it’s right in front of me or i’m missing the point entirely. let’s have it.
think i got too caught up in my translation and didn’t respond as it pertains to the wd. so from what you’re saying i’ll interpret it to mean that the rogers (machine operators) help to run a well-oiled machine (the wd?!). however, their gears, if you will, do not operate well without a set of a pre-determined variables/instructions that they can manipulate. and that is the limitation of machine operation. make sense?
No, no it does not. (keep trying…90% of sucess is showing up)
ok, i give up. either i’m over-thinking and it’s right in front of me or i’m missing the point entirely. let’s have it.
Wasn’t going to respond to any of this but it all has been bugging me. Quite obviously, and I know 2 out of 4, are Clarks. There seems to be a theme running through here on Rogers, being the machine operators and voice of the masses. And that all may be true to a point but thinking about it I have to say (as a Roger) that of the 3 types, the Rogers are the more rounded and the more positive, happier of them. We look at life maybe through rose colored glasses but Clarks spend waaay too much time thinking and Scotts, well they tend to be a little self-centered. I have thought about my mother, who was a Clark and yet had so many aspects of the others and yes I know we all have bits and pieces of the 3. Anyway, just thought I’d share a little – and the New Year will be a good one for all:)
Wasn’t going to respond to any of this but it all has been bugging me. Quite obviously, and I know 2 out of 4, are Clarks. There seems to be a theme running through here on Rogers, being the machine operators and voice of the masses. And that all may be true to a point but thinking about it I have to say (as a Roger) that of the 3 types, the Rogers are the more rounded and the more positive, happier of them. We look at life maybe through rose colored glasses but Clarks spend waaay too much time thinking and Scotts, well they tend to be a little self-centered. I have thought about my mother, who was a Clark and yet had so many aspects of the others and yes I know we all have bits and pieces of the 3. Anyway, just thought I’d share a little – and the New Year will be a good one for all:)
Appreciate the Reply.
There is much work to be done to make this blog (and the Wakefield Doctrine itself) into a form that is easy to understand by readers at all ‘levels’. Glad to see you have the core concept, i.e. that we all have the potential of all three types but are experiencing the world predominately as one. Everything you say about the types is true, the question how to communicate that (through this blog).
This is a discussion I am constantly trying to engage the others in, how we shape the message so that the totally first time Reader will ‘get it’ on the first visit. Trickier than it sounds, because you have to think: how does a scott read this or what does a clark think this means…
Am always after your Progenitor (roger) about this; you people (rogers) do have the social abilities, his Posts are very popular, but there is a limit to what he can write about. His experiences, the view of a roger is a view from the herd. Not saying it is a bad thing, as I said to AKH, machine operators are essential to life, they provide consistency, predictabilty (I would hate to ride in an airplane engineered and built entirely by scotts! Would look great, be very loud, go really, really fast and the wings may or may not fly off on the first flight).
Each of us have a strength and an equally large deficiency. Scotts act, they do things, they are certain. They also have no ability to imagine ‘what is not’. clarks are real good at that, we are the creative ones, if rogers account for stable culture and civilization, then it is the clarks who move it from the Dark Ages to Middle Ages on and so on, (getting burned at the stake in the process).
The second goal of the Wakefield Doctrine is to provide tools for anyone to ‘improve themselves’, to change how they live to their benefit.
Of course, not counting the people capable of coming here and reading this shit, most rogers and scotts see totally no need to change themselves. (and the clarks are busy re-inventing this wheel).
So, anyway. If you think of a topic and want to get yourself read by rogers all over the damn globe, let me know (or let your progenitor know) be glad to help.
Appreciate the Reply.
There is much work to be done to make this blog (and the Wakefield Doctrine itself) into a form that is easy to understand by readers at all ‘levels’. Glad to see you have the core concept, i.e. that we all have the potential of all three types but are experiencing the world predominately as one. Everything you say about the types is true, the question how to communicate that (through this blog).
This is a discussion I am constantly trying to engage the others in, how we shape the message so that the totally first time Reader will ‘get it’ on the first visit. Trickier than it sounds, because you have to think: how does a scott read this or what does a clark think this means…
Am always after your Progenitor (roger) about this; you people (rogers) do have the social abilities, his Posts are very popular, but there is a limit to what he can write about. His experiences, the view of a roger is a view from the herd. Not saying it is a bad thing, as I said to AKH, machine operators are essential to life, they provide consistency, predictabilty (I would hate to ride in an airplane engineered and built entirely by scotts! Would look great, be very loud, go really, really fast and the wings may or may not fly off on the first flight).
Each of us have a strength and an equally large deficiency. Scotts act, they do things, they are certain. They also have no ability to imagine ‘what is not’. clarks are real good at that, we are the creative ones, if rogers account for stable culture and civilization, then it is the clarks who move it from the Dark Ages to Middle Ages on and so on, (getting burned at the stake in the process).
The second goal of the Wakefield Doctrine is to provide tools for anyone to ‘improve themselves’, to change how they live to their benefit.
Of course, not counting the people capable of coming here and reading this shit, most rogers and scotts see totally no need to change themselves. (and the clarks are busy re-inventing this wheel).
So, anyway. If you think of a topic and want to get yourself read by rogers all over the damn globe, let me know (or let your progenitor know) be glad to help.
Just thought I would contribute a little something…it’s been a while for me.
Phyllis, I loved your contribution regarding Big Andy, Al and Katie, and the Russell story…I could just see him doing that.
I was visiting Dave M., a Roger, from the Friday night gang, in the hospital yesterday. He’s ok, they’re doing tests…some heart issues. Anyway, he and I, both Rogers, started talking about our favorite TV shows..it’s funny, we were both nodding our heads in unison as we each mentioned any shows that we liked: Extreme Engineering, History channel stuff, Ask This Old House, Haulin’ House (Dave, not me…yet). Lots of how-to stuff. All of this is opposed to conversations with my friend Miki (Scott) “.just give me the damn hammer and I’ll do it. By the time you listen to all of that stuff, it could be done”. And I reply…”But not well”. We went Christmas shopping a few weeks ago, and she found a couple of things she thought would look nice on my mother and aunt. I would have thought my way out of not buying them…they just looked too big or not right, or what if she didn’t like them and would be forced to wear them. Instead, she just held them up…said” These will look great on them!” ran over to the register and bought them. Wouldn’t you know it, they looked great! Don’t know how she does it..but I’m trying to learn.
Happy New Year everyone!!
Just thought I would contribute a little something…it’s been a while for me.
Phyllis, I loved your contribution regarding Big Andy, Al and Katie, and the Russell story…I could just see him doing that.
I was visiting Dave M., a Roger, from the Friday night gang, in the hospital yesterday. He’s ok, they’re doing tests…some heart issues. Anyway, he and I, both Rogers, started talking about our favorite TV shows..it’s funny, we were both nodding our heads in unison as we each mentioned any shows that we liked: Extreme Engineering, History channel stuff, Ask This Old House, Haulin’ House (Dave, not me…yet). Lots of how-to stuff. All of this is opposed to conversations with my friend Miki (Scott) “.just give me the damn hammer and I’ll do it. By the time you listen to all of that stuff, it could be done”. And I reply…”But not well”. We went Christmas shopping a few weeks ago, and she found a couple of things she thought would look nice on my mother and aunt. I would have thought my way out of not buying them…they just looked too big or not right, or what if she didn’t like them and would be forced to wear them. Instead, she just held them up…said” These will look great on them!” ran over to the register and bought them. Wouldn’t you know it, they looked great! Don’t know how she does it..but I’m trying to learn.
Happy New Year everyone!!