the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate instensity | the Wakefield Doctrine the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate instensity | the Wakefield Doctrine

the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate instensity

May 10, 2010 By

 I have an explanation, and I promise not to get all artsy and all on you…well, not too artsy…

Changes are being seen here at the Doctrine. No, not to the Wakefield Doctrine itself, rather to the people who are directly involved in this little experiment of a blog. Originally intended to be a group effort, creation of the Posts fell primarily to one of us. With occasional contributions from the Progenitor roger, but for the most part what you have been reading (in this blog) has been the product of one mind/viewpoint/personality. And not that that is a bad thing, it has provided a continuity, a consistency, a single-mindedness of how the Wakefield Doctrine has been presented.

But over the past 9 months or so, we have tried different ways to incorporate the differing viewpoints (of the Doctrine) that inevitably results when having 10 people providing content. This (approach) has been successful to varying degrees. When this approach has worked, it has worked rather well, case in point being the different ‘Interview’ Posts. These Posts have offered an opportunity to get another ‘take’ on the Doctrine.

We are now entering a phase (in the development of this blog) wherein more and more there will be other participants not only offering opinions and Comments, but creating actual content, writing Posts. All with a common purpose, of course, to advance the understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) and to demonstrate practical applications of this wonderful tool…(what was that?…do I hear a plaintive howl in the distance?…it sounds like a lonely scott…in silhouette against the backdrop of a lonely world of prey and predatore…saying something…”higher purpose”….”higher purpose”…)

Oh, yeah. DownSpring Glenn would like to pose a question to you all, however he has a scottian disability and can only speak through an inter-mediary (unless it is through the Comments section, which is akin to the claque, but not for hire). Anyway, he does have a Valid Point. Let us use this as the starting point for the Wakefield Doctrine lesson of the day. 

(Now we get fancy…as I stated, Glenn can only communicate through Comments…which will have a necessary time delay…so I will pose the initial question and the pre-suppose the answers in order to present the follow-up questions…)

So, Monsieur M. you have a question for us, non? (my apologies, while it is a scottian characteristic to be gifted at languages, this scott is more to the south, romance languages-speaking. (So, if I may begin again…)

CSR: ¿Así pues, Sr. Glenn, usted deseaba plantear una pregunta a nuestros lectores en vista de la doctrina de Wakefield?  (I will cut and paste his responses for the convenience of our Readers)
DownSpring Glenn: “Well, yeah. The question is: To what higher purpose can the Doctrine be applied? We call it “fun”. We say it is “interesting”. We say it is “useful”. How? Is there some more lofty purpose for it? Can it lift people up? Can it help us ease the burdens of living in the world? Can it promote more understanding among people? (Fuck that!)”
 
CSR:  Este ‘ Un Purpose’ más alto; ¿puede usted darnos un ejemplo de lo que usted significa?
DownSpring Glenn:My question is—Is this a lofty enough purpose? Can the doctrine ….save the world? Can it …end war? Can it ….keep families together? You tell me. I don’t know. Or is it just fun–and that’s enough. How seriously should we take ourselves in this matter? Are we doing something here that is fun? Or are we doing something that is ….important? Fuck! The question sounds rogerian.
 
Well, that was certainly interesting.
 
This has been a fairly disjointed Post…(“no, Miss Sullivan, I believe they can make a distinction… very amusing…) but we are serious here about presenting the principles of the Doctrine in each and every Post. So what is the lesson we take from today’s little effort?  Very simply, the Wakefield Doctrine will alter your world, your reality. What you are seeing on these pages are the proof of this statement. Unfortunately, at this stage of the process the evidence of this benefit is confined to the (direct) partipicpants, i.e. the Progenitors and DownSprings. All of us here at the Doctrine can see the effect that this project is having on each other, thereby reinforcing this change. But before I get too branch davidian on your asses, lets stop for now and get out the ol WD foot tappin way… Mr. B? if you will…
 
 
 

 

Related Posts:

Share
Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,

clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one

Comments

  1. Glenn Miller says:
    May 10, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    Well, yeah. The question is: To what higher purpose can the Doctrine be applied? We call it “fun”. We say it is “interesting”. We say it is “useful”. How? Is there some more lofty purpose for it? Can it lift people up? Can it help us ease the burdens of living in the world? Can it promote more understanding among people? (Fuck that!)
    I use it mostly to account for behavior that makes no sense to me. In my frame of reference, people “ought to” do certain things in response to certain other things. They often do not do what I think they “ought to”. The Doctrine helps me explain it to myself. “She does that because she is a roger…poor fucking thing..” Or, “He makes no sense because he is a clark…ponderous asshole..” My question is—Is this a lofty enough purpose? Can the Doctrine ….save the world? Can it …end war? Can it ….keep families together? You tell me. I don’t know. Or is it just fun–and that’s enough. How seriously should we take ourselves in this matter? Are we doing something here that is fun? Or are we doing something that is ….important? Fuck! The question sounds rogerian. Is it all light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek?–Or does the Doctrine actually offer a vehicle for some kind of serious enlightenment? Does the question answer itself? Like “If you have to ask how important it is, it ain’t that important.” A subject for discussion. I guess. Care to comment? Motherfuckers?