The Sixth Sentence -the Wakefield Doctrine- completes the Story

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

the-brook-in-the-woods-1889

Here it it, ‘pre-Thursday’ already! It’s been my practice to put some words on ‘paper’ as a way to reduce lock-up come tomorrow (Thursday) morning, when zoe’s bloghop ‘Six Sentence Story‘ opens for business. It helps to not have to stare at a blank white page.

The theme, (of the bloghop), is simplicity itself: write a story in six, (and only six), sentences.

This week, our host, zoe, has charged us with creating a story of six sentence length using the word, ‘Point’ as the prompt, reference, starting p….

“No fricken way,” the writer stared at the list of definitions for the word ‘Point’, his confidence leaking like the hollow pillow of a life raft full of holes, CO2 canisters hissing like cats on a merry-go-round.

“I’ve lost it, finally a word without a story… or too many stories,” he felt the faux nausea of the previous nights non-sleep, eight hours of waking up too soon and not getting back to sleep soon enough; like an old movie where a plot point is announced by a display of newspapers being printed and put, full screen, headlines blaring, the jagged dream fragments ran through his head. The only bright spot was the memory of a creative twist to a night of worry-dreams, as he recalled that every other dream centered on relaying someone else’s six sentence story into the mornings collection.

Counting periods with the exaggerated care of a precocious four-year-old, all too aware of the how important it was to the adults, he counted, then remembered another metaphor to contrast the child image with that of an elderly adult, all Sinbad and the Old Man of the Sea, like.

“Whats the point,” he thought, kicking the thorny deja vu chewing at his ankle across the floor and under the bed, he looked for a rhetorical insurance policy, “it’s always a good idea to muddle up the imagery and make it hard to remember if you’ve written this story before, otherwise you’d need pray that the group’s collective memory is all cozy with strangers, like a college dorm on a snowy Thursday night. Satisfied that he kicked at his rhetorical trail enough to evade all but the most ruthless trackers, he smiled with relief and punched in the last (period) .

 

 

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘wherein the author sees (and seizes) an opportunity presented by errant comments’

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

2830

At times, in the course of writing this blog, a comment will appear that, while intended as a response/reaction/rebuttal or rant, is of such a nature as to form the basis of a new post. Our friend Cynthia, to name just one, has a certain penchant for such commentationing.

So, this weekend, there was, as usual, a TToT post. Josie has continued the tradition of the TToT quite effectively, so much so that we are seeing an increasing number of new ‘faces’*. And, of course, the usual gang of writers, tellers of tales, and, of recent time, travelers. I refer, of course, to Friend of the Doctrine, Kerry.

As has happened increasingly of late, I was short an Item or two for my TToT. I wrote on the Facebook a plea for help. Kerry graciously consented, wrote a comment (for inclusion as an Item on my Saturday post). And therein hangs our tale. (Or, at least, the ‘theme’ of this Monday post). First, Kerry’s Comment:

Sounds good. Let’s all, three of us, all go to dinner together. Love your ideas

And, sure, I’d love to offer up. I have plenty of those Mexico stories. I continue to be thankful for that trip every day. Any in particular you’re looking for?

The mariachi serenade in the park? I already wrote about that experience and submitted it for consideration of an excellent Canadian literary prize. I love to eat rose petals and crickets. I am thankful for all the food I got to eat and the people I got to meet. I love to find a rhyme in and amongst my thankfuls.

***

Huh. Hmm. Where did my comment go? I told of stories from Mexico, per your request, but now I am rewriting.

Thank you, Kerry! I recall the mariachi story, but the ‘eating rose petals and crickets’? Now how could I have missed that!  (lol… hold on a second… hey! Kerry’s text to audio app! that last sentence, the italics??  remember: sarcasm comes in many tones. In this case, the tone is one of, ‘I know how I might have forgotten the image of insects ala carte, however there is admiration overlaying the sarcasm… got it?  fine. carry on’)

OK, I’m back.

One of the things about Kerry’s comment on her comment (at the Doctrine) that resonated with me was notion of re-writes. For whatever reason, there’ve been a couple of instances in the last week in which I wrote comments (and received comments) with a significant delay. Over at Jo’s Fallen Angel, for example, I kept not seeing my comment register… speaking of the Wakefield Doctrine

lol

(yeah, there really are no situations, (in life, virtual or real), that cannot be enhanced with the application of our favorite personality theory.)

In any event, whenever I do that, i.e. write a comment, hit publish, come back a few hours/the next day, to read replies and see that my comment is missing I have two immediate and nearly simultaneous** reactions: a) ‘oh man, they’re gonna think I’m blowing them off, reading and commenting only on a few and still looking for them to comment on mine’ and 2) ‘maybe my comment was deleted…blocked even! should I write another comment, which, if it’s my computer messing up, will at least let them know I wrote one or just back out of the room quietly and maybe everyone won’t hate me.’

Did I mention that, in the parlance of the Wakefield Doctrine, I’m a clark?  lol  yeah, good thing I  have this here personality theory here, otherwise I’d be way more reclusive this Monday morning than normal.

Well, time to go, Thank you, Kerry! Not only for the comments, but for the post starter-thought.

 

*  for example, there’s Patricia, and her eponymous blog1Patricia’s Place‘  who has joined in the TToT conversation and added a quietly insightful voice

  1. just wanted to see if I could use the word and get away with it

** will offer this question to our more rabid Doctrine aficionados, (I’m looking at you Denise, Cynthia …. Lizzi!!) which of the two reactions comes first?

Share

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘(an) answer to yesterday’s question’

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

images-128

So yesterday we had a post that in part posed a question to Readers. And, as is the way of this here blog here, the process of answering was both the clue to the answer and confirmation of the underlying assumption. (No! wait!! scott.… I’ll get things moving… just let me set up the premise… then music videos and excitement!! I promise!)

Recap:

I think I’ll settle for a quiz that’s as close to a personality assessment as you’re going to encounter here at the Wakefield Doctrine):

    • When you woke up this morning, did you feel good/scared/confident that today would be a good day in ‘the world out there’? If that sounds at all reasonable, go stand over there… no, there are others already in that section of the gym, you’ll see them when you get there.
    • When you woke up this morning, did you get up? ok… amuse yourself while I deal with the last group of personality types. Sure, anywhere will be fine.
    • When you woke up this morning, (well, lets rephrase that to ‘when you transitioned from quiet concern to active concern), did you feel that although you might describe yourself as confident, you will swear in a court of law that the world makes sense if you just work hard enough at understanding it. If you don’t find that description of the start of the average day totally un-reasonable, don’t go anywhere… stay here in the middle of the crowd of participants

There you have it! The three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine!

How do you know which you are?

To which our friend Cynthia Sageleaf commented:

“Hmm…when I woke up this morning, I thought, man, I DON’T want to get up…I just want to stay warm and let that world out there just do its thing while I do my thing (reading, writing, contemplate) right here. lol”

So, New Readers? Cynthia is a clark* by her own admission. Now in her comment, she gives us clues to understand why the choice she made (from among the three) is the clarklike choice. Do you know what that is?

Hey! We’re not so much into the ‘Tell us the answer and we’ll tell you if you’re wrong or right’ here at the Doctrine. That being said, many of us enjoy the challenge of ‘getting it right’. Far be it from us to deny that self-affirmation that prompts that hand to shoot up in the back of the class…”I know this one!! I know! Call on me.”

So lets compromise! This is being posted in the morning. I’ll follow-up in the afternoon with a continuation of the discussion of the implications of Cynthia’s Comment. Since we’re kinda ‘open book’ in our quizzes here, if you want to ask Cynthia directly, go to her site ‘Intuitive and Spiritual’ and ask her. She is totally happy to help.

Be sure to come back this afternoon!!

 

OK it’s afternoon, in an early-evening sort of way. Thanks to Valerie for commenting (and thereby reminding me that I needed to finish this post).

So, the key element to the ‘quiz’ is the notion of the world as being ‘out there’. Not, ‘out there’ in the sense of, ‘oh man, clark, you’re really kinda getting out there with this personality theory’ but more ‘out there’ as in ‘separate from the person making the observation’. aka the Outsider. Of the three, clarks are the ones most comfortable with the notion that the world, reality, the girl in the checkout line at the Stop n Shop and your favorite nail technician at ‘Plenty Pretty Salon’ are in a place that is not where we are. We wake up and consider the world out there and decide how best (or if at all) we can deal with it. rogers and scotts tend not to make a distinction between themselves and a planet full of people, nephews, dogs, old movies and serious religion. They are a part of, on a pre-conscious level. clarks, it is said, can believe anything because we don’t believe in anything. (that is a deliberately provocative expressing of the notion that if there is always possibility, there can never be certainty.)

ya know?

(Since I did promise our scottian friends a music video):

 

*  btw one of the few Rules around here has to do with designating a worldview to a person. It’s up to you to determine which of the three is your predominant worldview, and therefore, your personality type. No one has any authority to say, “You are a (fill in the blank) get used to it!” That does not mean that we can’t talk about another person’s worldview, but it’s the height of gauche to discuss someone’s worldview when they are standing right there, unless, of course, they invite discussion. aiight? Cynthia has stated publicly that she is a clark.

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘the pursuit of the Perfect Doctrine Post’

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

images-17

It has long been my ambition to write the Perfect Wakefield Doctrine post. (One might argue about that adenoidial descriptor, it has always been my ambition, since the very first post, hell, before the very first post). In any event, I’ll give it a shot today, Monday.

The definition of perfection? A post that a total stranger, (to this blog or, for that matter, a person who has not come into contact with anyone who knows of this personalty theory), can read…once and apply it to their own life right then and there. They will look around and they will see the clarks and scotts and rogers.

 

As a personality theory, the Wakefield Doctrine is more the key a song is played in than it is the song. It is not a definition of a set of established behaviors, tendencies, drives and tropisms, rather it is a way of looking at (the) behaviors, tendencies, drives and tropisms that everyone you encounter today will exhibit. Including yourself. Unlike most of the personality theories that we all come into contact with, the Wakefield Doctrine is not concerned with establishing where, in a pre-established matrix of behavior, you fit best. The Wakefield Doctrine is not concerned with behavior. The Wakefield Doctrine is concerned with ‘how you relate yourself to the world around you’.

Quick set of assumptions and predicates: reality (the world around us) is, to a small, but certain extent, personal; we are, all of us, born with the capacity to experience the world around us in one of three characteristic ways: as an Outsider (clarks), as a Predator (scotts) or as a Herd Member (rogers); finally, although we all, (all of us), settle on, settle into one of the three worldviews, we never lose the capability to experience the world ‘as do the other two’.

Even though the Wakefield Doctrine is concern with relationships, it helps to have labels and definitions (provided that we do not ignore Korsybski’s famous statement, ‘the map is not the territory‘.

Hold on. Enough with the Wikipedia citations and the excessive use of semi-colons!

I think I’ll settle for a quiz that’s as close to a personality assessment as you’re going to encounter here at the Wakefield Doctrine):

  • When you woke up this morning, did you feel good/scared/confident that today would be a good day in ‘the world out there’? If that sounds at all reasonable, go stand over there… no, there are others already in that section of the gym, you’ll see them when you get there.
  • When you woke up this morning, did you get up? ok… amuse yourself while I deal with the last group of personality types. Sure, anywhere will be fine.
  • When you woke up this morning, (well, lets rephrase that to ‘when you transitioned from quiet concern to active concern), did you feel that although you might describe yourself as confident, you will swear in a court of law that the world makes sense if you just work hard enough at understanding it. If you don’t find that description of the start of the average day totally un-reasonable, don’t go anywhere… stay here in the middle of the crowd of participants

There you have it! The three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine!

How do you know which you are?

Up at the top of the post, I wrote ‘how you relate yourself to the world around you’. That is how you know. Even at the Doctrine, where words are viewed as either those colored semi-candy things that you sprinkle on desert or, the yellow and black Cliff Notes that serve as badges of ‘success at any cost’ in school, sometimes we mean exactly what we say. When we say, ‘how you relate yourself to the world around you’, we do not mean, ‘how you relate to the world around you’. It is about you and your relationship to the world that the Doctrine is concerned. So read some posts, read some pages that describe the characteristics of the three worldviews. The perspective ( as an Outsider or as a Predator or as a Herd Member) through which the world is least blurry, that’s your predominant worldview, your ‘personality type’.

Congratulations! You’re a clark (or) a scott (or) a roger.

Lots more to tell you* stop by anytime!

*self-grading of attempt at the perfect Post: C+ … ok a B- (seeing how you’re a clark and clarks are nothing if they’re not willing to do most things to help the other person feel better).

 

Share

Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “and then there were three”

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

20170309_183311

Why is a coffee mug like a writing desk?

no, I’m serious… Readers of the Wakefield Doctrine can easily imagine how good/pleased/(I’d say delighted but fear that would sound… I don’t know, a little X-Chromish) I felt when, upon Phyllis’ arrival home the other night and said, “Did you know there were packages on the porch. I think one is the clothes I ordered…”*

Well. I came up the stairs, a rectangle box that  was littered with slogans and icons of LL Bean in one hand, and in the other, a cube of styrofoam. Not exactly a cube, more of a decahedron of styrofoam. I looked for a return address and finding none, walked out (through the French doors in the dining area) to the deck and scanned the trees surrounding the house.

There was a cup inside the cube decahedron. And the cup is,  well you can see it above. It is a lot like the first mug and undeniably quite different.  Let me show you:

20170308_172749

…that’s how a mug is like a story.

Thank you, mug-fairy(s)**

(Best be careful in them trees, hear tell there’s some snow in the future for them of us in New England)

*  note: I always come into the house through the garage, which is sorta under the main living area and so will hardly ever notice parcels or packages on the front porch. I put a photo in the ‘cover photo’ for this post. You can kinda see the design in the photo

** no, I totally agree, not a major risk of that term gaining traction in the world of fun surprise anonymous gifts of coffee mugs that contain a secret story.

 

Share

© 2009-2017 Francis Clark Farley All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright