Le stade du miroir comme formateur des la fonction du Je*… and the Wakefield Doctrine (uh oh…non-native language Post Titles, that can’t be good.) | the Wakefield Doctrine Le stade du miroir comme formateur des la fonction du Je*… and the Wakefield Doctrine (uh oh…non-native language Post Titles, that can’t be good.) | the Wakefield Doctrine

Le stade du miroir comme formateur des la fonction du Je*… and the Wakefield Doctrine (uh oh…non-native language Post Titles, that can’t be good.)

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )

There are points in the development of:  a) ourselves as functioning, healthy humans  b) a theory to account for the structure of what most call personality and/or c) the skill-set upon which (we) would launch our efforts to explain the subjective existance to those who remain primarily in the the objective (world). Today’s Post is one of those Posts.
Readers of the Wakefield Doctrine are familiar with the  recurring theme,  i.e. what good is the Wakefield Doctrine if it cannot be explained in terms that all three personality types can ‘understand’? Essentially our quandary is this:

the Wakefield Doctrine holds that we all have the capacity to  experience the world in one of three  characteristic ways, as a clark or a scott or a roger. But it (the Doctrine)  maintains that at an early age, (lets say between 3 and 5 years old), we settle on one of the three and become a clark or a scott or a roger. That we (retain) the ‘other two’ is evidenced by the fact that most people, when first introduced to the Wakefield Doctrine will say, ‘OK I seem to be mostly a roger, but sometimes I know I must be a scott’.  That is because they are…
But our quandary is this: each of the three types speak a language of their own,

  • a (clark) will speak with (parentheses),
  • a scott will SPEAK! with force and empah..emafa…Loud! with those exclams!!! and
  • rogers  well to do justice to the style of most rogers we need to appreciate the rich tapestry of tradition and hand-me-downs

Clearly a scott  has little patience for involved and intra-qualified statements and a roger, while able to deal with the complex and subtle, usually does not perceive what a clark says as being ‘useful’. Clearly we have a problem.

Our boy Jacques may be of help, unfortunately he is:

  • a little, shall we say roundabout, dense and hard to understand
  • trapped in a level and quality of rhetoric and discourse that does not translate well
  • limited by the number of ibids and op cits we have on hand
  • dead

So, once again we are on our own. Our solution to the problem of inter-type communication is simply to become tri-lingual. (yeah, scott we also join you in your appreciation of the funny words). Until we stumble upon the Langue universelle or become fluent in scottian and rogerian, we will perforce resort to repetition.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan

Share

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 says:

    very cool music.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      yeah, interesting version… less of the ‘scary black guy/novelty song’ more of the early rock ‘n roll ( barely out of the rythmn and blues )

  2. Clairepeek says:

    Le stade du miroir comme formateur de (not “des) la fonction du JE… interesting title I felt like going back to my high school’s philosophy class (one of my favorite subject) and yes I am using parenthesis… Just needed to show of my skill in my native language… I’ll be back!
    Too doo loo!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      darn that google translator!! yet another gift with strings courtsey of the internet…other languages without understanding. However I am a sucker for the sound and power of a quotation that (seemed) to resonate with my intention at the stage of my writing this particular Post.
      I look with envy upon those who can write with deliberation, shaping and crafting an idea until it is exactly as they would have it.

  3. Downspring#1 says:

    Someone, somewhere will look upon this post (perhaps) as being written, shaped and crafted rather precisely. I did.
    I would challenge old and new reader alike to make a statement that they cannot understand what is being said here, in today’s post. Really folks. It can’t get more simple than this. (“simple” is not being used in the diminutive here).
    See, it is true, clarks are fond of the parenthesisssssss’s……