Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Let’s go with this:
clarks live for in the Future, scotts live in the Present and rogers live in for the Past
You know, this Post today, feels very much like a different kind of pre-New Year/retro-appreciation/ante-hopefull Post, at least in contrast to the previous 4 years of Dec 30-31 type Posts.
Naturally, I have an urge to wax philosophic, to write something that will make you, the Reader say, ‘wow he’s really come a long way/hey! I didn’t know he had it in him/well, this is a surprise! maybe I’ve been underestimating those Doctrine people’. But for some reason, the anticipated payoff (of writing such a Post) is not drawing me forward. (Reader Alert! you wanna know something about clarks that a lot of them don’t know about themselves and…and! is a really cool Doctrine expression? When a clark finds hope (inside their heads or outside in the world, doesn’t really matter), we tend to eat our futures. …ask a clark, they’ll explain.)
Maybe it’s the fact that I just spent an hour reading through Comments from the first Post, forward (only got as far as when Cyndi arrived on the scene), and maybe it’s the fact that we had two really good Doctrine vid chats this weekend, (in attendio: Lizzi and Michelle, zoe and Denise, Katia and Star and in a cameo appearance, Mrs. Always Random). Today’s slight case of ennui has me beginning to suspect that, shades of Sterling Hayden in Dr. Strangelove, whatever part of me goes into writing Posts gets drawn out at a more… climactic rate participating in these vid chats, which to my mind amount to ‘live Posts’.
Be that as it may. With increased Readership comes increased responsibility and response-ability. So, the year that is drawing to a close was a very good year for the Doctrine. In fact, as I realized in one of this weekend’s conversations, we have achieved one of the first goals set, back in 2009, when this blog started. My goal was simple, ‘to find a way to write/explain/present the Wakefield Doctrine such that a total stranger, with no prior contact/conversation/or tutoring could come here, read it and understand the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine sufficiently enough to go out and see the clarks, scotts and rogers in their world.’ Done.
But, in a conversation with Lizzi yesterday, the topic of developing my rogerian aspect sufficiently enough to make my writing…emotionally compelling. That is, as of yet, an un-achieved goal. (and that is what had me reading 4,000 Comments this morning, lol I know that I wrote something that had life and feeling and accessibility in it! I know I did! …I can recall the topic, it was a story about Ola and how we used to have hamburgers together every Saturday night. It was a short, little reminiscence I didn’t set out to write me a heartwarming story, but the response from Readers to it was unmistakable. But, try as I might, I could not find it in the archives. oh well. …it’s good to have goals. Maybe someday I will have one of those moments again._
So.. lets stop at 509 (plus or minus) words. Still have New Years Eve for a Post… maybe I can channel my scottian side to write that one. (yeah, I’ll remember to Post a Parental Warning). See you all tomorrow!
About clarkscottroger
first on a Monday isn’t really first…. oh well. Hey it strikes me that this is a bit more rogerian than is typical for you despite your efforts to remain distant… also the post re the loss of zoey was fairly rogerian as well yes?
z
(as we were discussing yesterday), probably all growth and change (and definitely the change brought on by Doctrine) is last noticed by the changee as opposed to the changors (by proxy, of course!)
you know, just over this weekend you said to me ” that’s not old…” and now you title this little ditty as you do? It infers some level of emotion in and of itself… (I have limited time this morning thus the sketchy comments)…lastly I loooooove the novel idea ….thought more about it… I think it would be a good exercise to let you let go of the self imposed limitations of the non-fiction writing gig ya got set up there…
zoe
… today’s Post Title is one of those, where sitting and waiting for the idea (if any) to appear to begin to write the Post, that was a thought fragment…’causes something to something’ I did not have the whole thing in my mind, which can be very aggravating…but I followed the trail (in my mind) and ended up with… ‘Brickhouse’ by the Commodores ( lol I know…)
thank you on that (working title: ‘the number you have dialed is no longer working, if you feel you have reached….’) (Lizzi should love that title.)
Yes – that one I could take and run with…the world of ‘if only’…
AWESOME Title!
Excellent post! I read it out loud to my husband Jim, who is a roger, but not a wimp.
love jnnny and yeah I get it but where are all my peeps. Don’t you have any other scott friends? whoa. xox
jny
(we knew that)… excellent! given your scottian nature, I will ask if you have any questions… that would not be ..pertinent.
I will, instead tell you something about yourself (…don’t get nervous, this is from the Doctrine’s description of the scottian worldview).
if you are at a party (not that you overly want to go to parties, enough of your friends want you to appear at their parties to account for you to have the experience of being in a social environment with a bunch of people)… you will, one way or another, meet/interact/talk to everyone at the affair…everyone
…sometimes they are in small groups…(you like those, they’re so easy) and sometimes they are standing alone by themselves (and you especially like them) but you will, in fact, not ‘rest’ until you have done so.
(this is referred to as the ‘ranking’ behavior of the scottian personality type (male or female) it is essential that you establish to your satisfaction where everyone stands in the ‘pack’.
(oh yeah, if you encounter another scott? probably cordial, sometimes not…always you will agree to divide the room..)
hey! do me a favor in the middle of the homepage there is a link with the title ‘In a Hurry?’ and a link to ‘Predominant Worldview Assessment’ go there and take the test and let me know your answers… a work in progress meant to help people figure out their worldviews (not that you need help with that lol) but as you’ll see in the questions I’m looking for responses appropriate to the three worldviews….
jny
yeah, they’re out there we have a couple of very …. nice? er very interesting? yeah we gots some scotts
I had hopes once. They ate my face. And the rest of me.
I’m not gonna bother with them any more*
*if I could only learn HOW.
that’s different from “face eaters” right?
yes
(the term ‘face eater’ refers to rogers with an exceedingly high secondary scottian aspect)
Was Joking. I have to work on my contextual inflection… lol…
Lizzi
that is something that all many, many, many clarks struggle with because we are (cursed) with the capacity to believe anything, which then inflicts the belief that anything is possible (not bad) but then, by extension it mutates into, ‘then everything should be possible’… and there is where, (when it happens) we are trapped by our own limitlessness
but it is possible to set things aside… (to give ourselves a much needed break)
the problem often is that, as clarks, we think: gigantic problem = gigantic solution not always… to set aside the horrible hope/hopeless thing need no entail doing it all like ‘the dark place’ sometimes simply experiencing it for a second is the highest good (yes, a clark is screaming ‘but if I am to give it up, that means forever’) and I would suggest while that is sort of true, there is a value in seeing within yourself the ability to set it aside, of only for a second.
something like that
I found as a clark that scaling down the gigantic solution has been one of the bigger challenges in life. But I think you’re right in doing that it allows you to break down the experience into something more manageable and to recognize the temporary qualities of everything in life including that which we find hopeless.
Temporary qualities are, I think, where it needs to be at.
There are no gigantic solutions. Only unanswerable questions.
Since you mentioned the Parental Warning, I now expect something “R”-rated :-)
Stephanie
well, not in today’s Post. But if I can access my scottian aspect, I will strive to write something more….exciting than our ‘normal’ Doctrine Post.
(lol well, we all know that a) the value in the Wakefield Doctrine for self-developing our selfs 2) scotts, well they are the life of the party, but if I find that I need to resort to more …colorful language)
ok over here….Tuesday!