Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
* is there anything more asystematic1 of the clarklike worldview than the attitude inherent in today’s subtitle?
clarks have:
- a natural sense of time (ask a clark to guess what time it is….she will be correct more often than not, and totally more often than her rogerian and scottian sisters)
- some weird-assed internal alarm clock, ‘hey! clark! we need to wake up at 4:44am tomorrow! you need me to set the alarm? …nah’
- a belief in the never-ending procession of the present ( Castaneda makes mention of ‘acting as if one were immortal’… )
clarks do not have:
- a sense of urgency (at least they do not, normally, permit themselves to be aware of a feeling of urgency)
- by urgency, we mean, of course, the irrevocable and irreplaceable passage of time
- enough sense to avoid that gambler’s trap, clarks create a future debt (of un-lived life) and are constantly doubling-down in the hopes of being so successful (at…whatever) so as to make up for the time wasted leading up to that future time-to-pay-the-man
In more normal terms and manner of expression, clarks and scotts are temporal opposites. scotts live for the moment, in the moment, not compensating for any past insufficiency, but simply because they do not see the future as being, in any way, superior to the present. clarks, on the other hand, do not believe in the present. (at least), they do not believe that the present is anything special…for (most) clarks, who all have a total confidence in their capacity to make a superhuman effort, if things ever get real serious, hold back…pace themselves. clarks do this, in part, because they believe that, due to past insufficiency, what they do now must be so much more…better, more valuable, more impressive, just to compensate for the past. (rogers, now they’re the truly odd ones of the three, on the matter of their relationship to time… they believe in tradition and yet they hide from history, they live in a world where what is to come is always grounded in what was, except, …except! the past is not person. yeah, weird, huh?
So tomorrow, speaking of time, will be a clark Day here at the Wakefield Doctrine’s Thursday’s Guest Post Thursday Guest Post! stop by. read. scratch your head. write a comment!
1) a faux rogerian expression. rogerian expressions are linguistic gestures characteristic and, in fact, (are) exclusive to the rogerian personality type and their giant, upholstered, tastefully decorated (with only the best materials and the highest degree of craftsmanship) worldviews. while often mistaken as passive (at least when in contrast to a scott), rogers will, at times, come up with a combination of words that, though, ‘on paper’, are very much incorrect, somehow manage a power, a piquant character that is totally unexpected and totally not ignorable. The most common reaction to a rogerian expression is a surprised outburst of laughter…. not ‘ha ha’ laughing, rather “what??! those words were not the words you choose on purpose, were they? tell us they weren’t!!”
Examples:
- …looking at his paycheck, a roger was heard to say: “oh man! Look at how much they deducted for aggravated security!”
- …talking about the upcoming release of a DVD: “no, I’m going to wait until they release the un-abashed edition.“
- …read in a real estate agent’s blog: ‘ I have to say that as a professional class in a respectable business, most agents are much too self-absorbent…”
and the original rogerian expression: …while still newly married, a roger’s wife threw a faculty party, in part, in the hopes of increasing her chances for tenure. a great deal of effort was put into the preparations and finally the big night arrived. In the middle of the dinner, amidst stimulating and learned conversation on topics ranging from the socio-economic aftermath of the Spanish Civil War, to the cultural legacy of Pancho Villa in rural Mexico, someone (perhaps the Dean, perhaps a colleague of his wife) asked roger if he would like a second serving of the mashed potatoes, to which he replied, “no thanks! I think I’ll surpass on that!”
damn! tell me about the secret aggressiveness of the rogers!
About clarkscottroger
Frist?
Frist indeed!
Ohhh gotta love a good dose of Rogerianism every now and again. Now…riddle me this… what kind of person wraps in popcorn paper and leaves a lipstick kiss? Cos that makes me wonder scott…
oh and the need to be better to compensate, even for ten minutes ago… the present is exhausting, yet I would say we’re also best at picking up on those stilling, glorious moments which transcend time
..
Lizzi
yes to the scott…but only if there is a little rumpling of the paper* and, …and maybe the lipstick kiss might not be theirs… (for a fleeting second) it occurs to you that it might be from yet another person!…then def scott
“...oh and the need to be better to compensate, even for ten minutes ago… the present is exhausting” and it’s funny how when we’re in that special kind of bad mood, all the worry, distraction and concern for compensating drops away, for all too short a time, and we are fairly damn amazing.
“…we’re also best at picking up on those stilling, glorious moments which transcend time” absolutely…somehow, even though we are focused on making up for shortcomings in a stellar future performance, we are able to step outside of time, at least…and especially, when it comes to other people (in our lives)…we somehow find perspective that ‘the other two’ appreciate…without knowing why!
* perfect, not a wrinkle out of place (also applies to the wrapping paper) would suggest a roger
Hmmm…did you send me here for the comment exchange or because I make use words in unusual ways (I don’t think so…)?
I can see how the paper and kiss would be Scottian. Kind of show-off-y? I think that shows progress on my understanding of the WD.
I once promised you a kiss if I met you so I thought I’d kinda-sorta deliver in the card. As for the popcorn paper, I tend to keep brown craft wrapping paper around for sending parcels, but I had run out. I took the kids with me to the craft store to buy more and they had no more and everybody was cranky and I was behind on the mailing the package…so I looked at the paper they had and picked one that was (1) on sale, (2) in large sheets, (3) wasn’t boring or stupid (in my humble opinion, though I’m not much of a popcorn person, myself) and wrapped it while my kids played in the mall play area. So I seriously doubt if it was wrinkle free.
Honestly, when I read posts and descriptions and such, I feel like I can identify with all in small ways, clark most of all, but there’s that self-doubt (which I think is clarky?) that Clark didn’t identify me as a clark so I must not be. So there we are.
Not show-offy, CONFIDENT, my dear, because I would anticipate a clark, on first contact, to shy away from such a clear show of…kiss…because it makes a statement. I remember you saying that, and I *love* the kinda sorta deliver :) The thing is though, as well, it went to other people, so it was very public…and you weren’t afraid. If you were primarily a clark, you would have had The Fear. The wrapping is awesome and I love it, and more, I love that you have very practical reasons for choosing it – which again tends to lean me towards a scott – you weren’t bothered about wrinkles but wanted it to be practical and *shiny*. Again, a clark would likely agonise over the message they were sending in the wrapping.
I think we’re getting closer to something approaching clarity :)
And we’re ALL all things, at some point or another.
“…that Clark didn’t identify me as a clark so I must not be…” ah but lest we forget the cardinal rule ( Canadian rule if you in fact ARE a roger, and WTF is a rule if you are in fact a Scott), “it is for you not for them….” or sumthin’ like that…
Well, OK, folks. I think I need to say something. Let me start out with reminding you (or telling you?) of my deep admiration and affection for you all. Truly, truly, I tell ye.
BUT, I’m frustrated here. I feel like I keep saying, “I feel I am this,” and the response I get is, “Oh no, you couldn’t be.” It’s really deeply frustrating and rather hurtful to be told you are not the person you know yourself to be. Especially by friends. I read Clark’s description of clarks, and I think, “Wow, this sounds A LOT like me. How cool to be able to connect with people who might possibly understand my character and life experiences on a level that is both profound and unusual.” And then when I try to connect, to hear, “Oh, you can’t possibly feel the same way we do. You are not one of us.” Do you see? I can’t believe that I am the person who knows me the least.
So, obviously, I have reached such a sticking point on this issue that I feel the need to carry on this conversation about a doctrine that is Clark’s, not my life guide. I think it’s because of a feeling of being misunderstood at my very essence, a disappointment that I can’t seem to get across who I am, and a feeling of exclusion that has been all too familiar in my life.
Lizzi, I do know those feelings you described. Deeply and well. They guided me most of my life and still do have a strong influence. I don’t know how I can toss that character aside at times (or subjugate it to another) and leave a lipstick kiss (I seem to possess something of an exhibitionist side). It’s certainly not easy. Maybe I have a strong secondary type, maybe I’ve learned to deny who I am in an effort to be more socially acceptable, maybe I drink and lose my inhibitions (though, for the record, I was NOT drinking at the craft store and play area :)).
Anyhow, this Wakefield Doctrine has become something I perseverate on to an unhealthy extent. I understand that there is a difference of opinion here, and I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. I need to let go of my need to convince other people of what I know to be right or real or true.
I hope, I hope, I HOPE this comment is not perceived as rude in any way because I really, TRULY do not mean it so. And words in print, you know… You ALL still have my deep affection and admiration. And I’m not leaving this circle. Thanks for reading.
Sarah… I hope this isnt anticlimactic in its brevity… but … my advice …not that you are asking for it but just cuz I like you so much… Stick with what YOU know…. We all have all three… I at times feel my roger is eating my clark alive … and pray for the return of my scott…lol! I wonder if the balance are less hierachal and more even… which I think leads to this feeling of angst… No angst necessary… Glad you are sticking as we’d miss you otherwise… remember to have fun! xo z.
you are welcome (‘for reading’)
I appreciate your Comment, as I’m sure all of the other Readers do, at least those who are interested in the Doctrine and (in) understanding the near limitless ways this unique perspective can be: fun, diverting, puzzling, aggravating, holy-shit!-I-see-what-you-mean-now!, annoying, stupid, fuck-you-and-your-little-theory, and helpful in people watching (which all three totally enjoy*).
Tell me who the hell is telling you that you ‘can’t be’, ‘…couldn’t be’….. I’ll kick they sorry ass out the door so fast,….so fast that… er there won’t be time to open the door first!! and, and they’ll like, crash into the door instead… oh, wait a minute! sometimes I can come across with an attitude of ‘this is how it works, toe the line or or else!’
sorry.
I feel fortunate that everyone visiting this has had the best of intentions and attitude and politihoodness (because there is an assumed rule at this blog that says: “no being a jerk at anyone** who comes here to learn about the Doctrine and/or amuse themselves with this thing.”)
In any event, I tend to talk too much, so here is the ‘ex cathedra’:
‘the Doctrine is for you, not them’
‘you can use it any way you please and you can’t get it wrong’
‘three worldviews, one predominant worldview with secondary and tertiary aspects, the experience of growing up, developing and living in (one of) the three worldviews are the ’cause of the personality types’ not the other way around.’
‘everyone has the potential of all three, but there can be only one predominant worldview at at time’***
‘everyone does everything at one time or another’
So I hope that helps.
as too why you’re having trouble deciding on your predominant worldview, don’t worry about it. everything comes to us at some point (or not)…the second quality of this here Doctrine here is: fun! so if it’s fun, great! if it is not fun, (and no one can seem to help you find the fun) then do not do it! life is too short to deliberately spend time doing the ‘not-fun’ things!
* for three completely different reasons, of course!
** with the possible exception of being a jerk at me! …and we’ll see how that works out
*** kinda the definition of ‘predominant’ ya know?
No – the kiss was definitely Sarah :) It’s a long-term owe. as she says :) The wrapping was rumpled and the lipstick was deep crimson :)
Special bad, OR special good…either works, to an extent.
I like transcending, and in a way, when I can, I like to transcend others. Sometimes with writing…yeah…that’s a thing.
transcendent literature… def. a thing….
I, for one, like the line: “… something approaching clarity :)”
yes, it is: ‘for us, not for them’….(except in cases when, ‘it’s them, not us’*) and don’t forget… ‘you can’t break it or do it wrong….’
(special cases, usually applicable when a clark gets lashed out at, by a roger….)
Paper is good! Frist! jeny
‘As Time goes by…’
lol! damn… very good Lizzi (and z and S and Jean for just now prompting the connection between the topics and Lizzi’s secondary Comment-topic…been nagging at my hindbrain all day)
Lizzi was nagging at your hind end?….OH….brain! Hind brain!
lol
question is does anyone see the rather imaginary linkage between Jean’s Comment and Lizzi’s starting point lol (I know there was one…a connection, not a hindbrain…. you know in back of the forebrain but above the brainpan)
The lizard brain….paper IS good!
Man oh man…was going to work on writing when I got home but all I’m doing is killing time until it’s time to go to bed. LOL. Some days are like that, non? Where you just want to hug the covers and hibernate until the next day….
lol yeah, I have less luck with staying in bed than I do with going to bed (early)…
I’m a little freaking out because maybe I have more Roger in me than I thought. FUCK. so what’s up with the Clark who lives in the present but does so silently because she thinks she’s the only one to see it???
nah… you a clark*
* Little life form: “parental unit, what’s a clark?”
parental unit: “why that’s a life form who knows they know what they know and knows it’s correct, but feel that it would be better to know it without having to wonder about the knowing! …you know?”