Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
How strange is this blogsphere? Shy people shout and bullies weep, rock-hard and un-imaginative people produce poetry and the weak show strength beyond reason. Maybe it’s the (secret) anonymity of posting our thoughts or perhaps it’s the simple fact that your keyboard has exactly as many keys as does mine. It’s like the ultimate coat check room (in reverse, of course), “…you’ll be dining with your rogerian boss and his scottian wife? may I offer you a cute little smart-ass jacket and pair of who-gives-a-fuck gloves?” This internet, in general, (and the ‘sphere, in particular), has so much that allows us to become more and become less.
and yet, I will (and you can) still be able to recognize a scott, no matter how sentimental her prose may be, and if there is a roger in the Comment thread, I’ll spot them (and teach you to) as sure as I can count the Replies-that-have-no-new-information-simply-are-the-graphic-form-of-getting-in-the-last-word. And, yes the clarks among us (my god! the ratio changes so much in the internet… in the ‘real’ world: 2/3’s rogers 1/10 scotts and 3/17’s clarks*).
So, is there a point to this Post today? Oddly, there is. Which is not to say that normally there is not a point to my Posts, there is. The motivation driving nearly all the Posts here at the Wakefield Doctrine has come from… the Wakefield Doctrine. (no, I’m not sure how to explain it. It’s just that, from the very first Post I wrote, I’ve felt a need to write about the Wakefield Doctrine, needless to say, it’s never been work. Aggravating and frustrating, sure! But I’ve always gotten more out of this process than I’ve put in. Very interesting**
In any event, one of the more remarkable effects of the Wakefield Doctrine (and it’s potential as a tool for self-improving oneself, surely to be a featured component of the Book), is my apparent comfort in living ‘the life public’… I realize that everyone who has a blog is, to one degree or another, comfortable with the idea that sharing of the semi-minutiae of life (of the author) will be welcomed (by the Readers). But, like any newly acquired skill, I suspect that I will come to appreciate the complexity of this idea more and more as I learn to be comfortable with this sharing.
oh!! yeah!! remind me to consider that the ….benefit of writing a Post might change, where I might start my day with a Post maybe the function it serves can change to the extent that it might serve as a way to un-wind at the end of a day, as opposed to…er winding up (?!!) at the beginning. And no, I have not over-looked the ‘everything Rule’ as it might apply here, in the question of the Doctrine changing my view on being more accessible. (nice catch, though zoe)
* I don’t have to say it, do I? …roger?
** if you are studying your Doctrine you will recognize this statement as clark for: “I don’t know, but there is an element of fear to this feeling, so lets not get too serious, ok?”
About clarkscottroger
HA! Don a pair of those gloves, my friend
But yes – there’s definitely a case to be made for the personal element, in spite of the greatness of the Wakefield Doctrine and your videos, perhaps taking a less academic approach with regard to your own life and the sharing of same will help to lend some context to the points you make, albeit based in reality rather than hypothesis.
thank you… I am beginning to suspect as much, not looking forward to (the) process, however, the history of my efforts since I started this blog has been one of doing things that, at another time, I could not imagine doing, much less doing well (and with enthusiasm)… because, well, because it’s the Doctrine! lol
…this will, as you astutely point out, be the proof of the value of the Doctrine as a tool to change.
Nice opening paragraph:)
“and yet, I will (and you can) still be able to recognize a scott, no matter how sentimental her prose may be…”
And this is the beauty of the Doctrine.
I haven’t read the post yet… I came with a chicken question and knowing you are all things in doctrine related poultry issues… well, it just stood to reason, eh?
I think Dyanne’s chicken ms. Daisy is a Clark with secondary Scott… have you extended your theory to other species?
My reasoning is such ; She likes to hang in the outskirts and watches all the other girls and boys somewhat longingly… however not to be ignored, she is often spotted in the company of one said horny-assed rooster… who by the way is always refusing her… she will peck at him if he is with another chicken (not to be overlooked) and God bless the other female.
z
lol… damn right we (can) extend to other species (lets see them Oscar Meyers Briggs match that insight-capacity!)
…because, as we all know, at the heart of the Wakefield Doctrine is the directive to observe and infer: ‘how does the (life form) relate themselves to the world around them’
very good question Miz Z. no good deed goes un-punished, so allow me to add another Doctrine principle (and potentially annoying insight): ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them’ which in the poultristic example you present Readers today, how do you feel about the type of behavior being exhibited by Dyanne (the poultry, not the human)?
well first off her name is Daisy… its Dyanne’s aunt she is named for….
What are you asking exactly… Im not sure…. I love this chicken … I find her particularly interesting in that I have never had one stand so far outside the group norm and yet fight for her own stand within it… she is quite fascinating really.
that’s just me being cleverly obsequious…. you see the chicken acting a certain way….. (voice over, Fritz Perls) ‘be the chicken’
lol (no, I don’t have a license, so it does you no good to demand that I surrender mine)!
god, I am muddled and slow lately…. Maybe I was too occupied with BEING the chicken…. http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/My-Favorite-Simple-Roast-Chicken-231348
The blogosphere is strange indeed, and a place where we feel both included and in awe of what the hell is going on around us (Clarks that is, especially when it comes to stupid DIY and recipe bloggers because really? Rogers!!!??? Do people want this stuff? I guess Rogers do). Also, you raise such a good point about blogging in general when it comes to the guessing that we’re all comfortable sharing or whatever. Are we actually sharing? Yes, to a degree, but maybe sometimes too we’re just hoping for the sphere and the understanding and the acceptance because maybe we want to share more, but as Clarks, that’s hard, and it’s hard to not give the people what they want while also knowing FUCK THEM it’s about us, but um, can’t somebody please come and read this and understand it anyway thing???
I enjoyed this post .SO much. For real.