Month: October 2009 | the Wakefield Doctrine Month: October 2009 | the Wakefield Doctrine

this is a Doctrine

October 31, 2009 By

Noun

Or this:

  • A belief or tenet, especially about philosophical or theological matters.
  • The body of teachings of a religion, or a religious leader, organization, group or text.
    • The incarnation is a basic doctrine of classical Christianity.
    The four noble truths summarise the main doctrines of Buddhism.

     

     

    “ALright! Alright! the clark is in the house! Give it up for tha gangsta of syllogisms, the Grandmaster of Meta-Funk, our own and only Claaaarrrrrrkkkkkk!!

    Yo, yoo, yo I see my boy roger on the wheels over there, gimme some bass there rog-er, dats the shit.

    SkaOttt, yeah my boy SkaOtt, where you at? YEah, homind, get your scerbic-ass self down here!!

    We gonna rock your frame-o-reference here in the house tonight. SHit, you not one of you gonna reference the world the same.

    SkaOtt tell ’em homind, tell ’em  bout what a meal out them (you made) and dat you come back for more!

    RoGER, kick that beat, make this sorry bunch walk to the rythmn you want ’em to walk.

    Its all our party, y’all be the food and ya be the drink… what you say is what we think.

    Take it out.”

    Share
    Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,

    Britney Spears, Obama, foreclosures, viagra, teenage vampires, take that, search engine motherf*ckers

    October 29, 2009 By

    (…Ahem)

    Alright, lots to of ground to cover, early morning and not a lot of time to write. Real good news though, I just learned to single space! As in: ‘damn I should be putting this sentence on its…
    own Line!!  May not seem like a big deal, but you try writing when all you can do is paragraphs.

    The current ‘tempest in a teapot’ or ‘Excitabat enim fluctus in simpulo’1 (for you clarks out there) here at the Doctrine is all about Presentation or how do we come up with an approach that will reliably hook-in you, the New Visitor/Reader? Not an unimportant question. In fact, the (correct) answer to this question is the difference between all this effort being either ‘oh yeah, those guys had this blog thing for a while last year’ and ‘she was one of those Wakefield Doctrine writers, man what a roger‘!

    The ‘visitor count’ is running only about 15 a day on average, but until we complete Remedial Writing 101, I suspect we should be grateful that it is low. I would hate like hell to waste a perfectly good ‘reader visit’ because this damn thing is written like we were on drugs or were scottian. The Wakefield Doctrine (aka theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is, in all seriousness an original and interesting ‘thing. 
    Not on par with ‘Das Kapital’ or ‘The Golden Bough’ or even Sheldon’s ‘Constitutional Psychology’, the Wakefield Doctrine is a way to change how you look at the behavior of the people around you. The Wakefield Doctrine supplies a perspective on the reasons that people act the way that they do and more to the point, the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers offers an explanation for the behavior of the people we (all) have to deal with at home, at work, at school.
    Most importantly, the Wakefield Doctrine provides insight into the minds of those around us. We have all heard the expression ‘you should walk a mile in his moccasins before you judge him (or words to that effect). The idea is that if we can see the world as another person sees it, then their behavior and actions and attitudes becomes understandable. (and predictable2)

    Since this is the Doctrine and the Doctrine sez there are only 3 personality types I will address each of the three, the clarks, the scotts and the rogers. (In no particular order, you will know which statement is for you.)

    The following statements are true:

    This is the Wakefield Doctrine. It has something of value that no other blog can offer. The Wakefield Doctrine is fun, it is educational and it is a way to get the upper hand on your enemies.
    This is the Wakefield Doctrine. It is not for everyone. It may sound familiar, in parts, to what you already know but it is now a product of more than one viewpoint so it has an advantage that your  system does not have, and that is acceptance by others.
    This is the Wakefield Doctrine. Read it. Laugh. Pretend you made it up yourself.

    The pages that follow should ‘fill in the blanks’. Have fun, leave Comments/Replies, buy a hat.

    (The sub-title? Oh yeah. mid-life crises guys here (and) here, younger folks here, political junkies here, and crises groupies here.)

    1)”He was stirring up billows in a ladle” (Wikipedia, of course)

    2) What the hell good is any knowledge if it does not let you predict the future?

    Share
    Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,

    and now we see as through a glass, clarkly

    October 27, 2009 By

    As established by the roger (Progenitor) in the last Post, all (living) things must evolve. And while not technically a ‘living thing’, this blog is hereby granted ‘honorary-for-the-purpose-of-holding-a-thought-together’ status. (Whew!)  Further, the term ‘garage band blogger’ has been coined and is the keystone metaphor for this process of promulgating the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, all while creating an entertaining (read: lots of readers) blog.

     So what does this mean? It means that the format of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) will change.  And since we have not formatted the specific changes yet, now is the time to vamp.

    (In sitcoms, when the writers needed time off, there was always the ‘flashback’ episode. So without further adieu…)

    Let us consider the world that we all experience in common.

    You know,  none of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is meant to be used to explain the day to day world ‘out there’. The Doctrine is not about politics or economics, it is not about how to earn a fortune through the internet or how to find god and a peace within and it is certainly not about the path to enlightenment. It is about how we can learn to see the world differently. Only by setting aside our most basic assumptions, we can arrive at an appreciation and understanding of the people we live and work with every day. And after all, it is the people we live with and the people we work and play with that make up the world. They are the world. Not the people described in the newspapers or on television or the internet, they are the background noise. Nothing overly real there.

    (So, how are you today? That video at the start of this Post? Jeez, I don’t know.)
    (It just seems to set the tone of this Post better than anything I could think up myself.)

    While at times, with authors changing, this Post seems to run the gamut of style and ease of reading. The goal of each Post is always the same, and that is to present the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers to widest range of readers. This process is not always so smooth, sometimes it gets a little clunky,but it does not give up just because of poor writing.

    So as we continue to stagger from ill-conceived idea to badly executed allusion, for your consideration: Woody Allen on evil.

    (The point of this Post? Hold on, I’m getting to it.)

    ‘Hey, hey Mr clarkscottroger! Is this going to be one of those Posts where there is no point only a series of clips from movies that you string together in the hopes of meeting your self-imposed goal of writing at least one Post a week?’

    Yes, yes it is.

    (Damn, still nothin.)

    I know! Lets do a Poll!! (they take up space and the crowdlette loves ’em).

    Now that was fun, wasn’t it?

    (Still a little too much white space showing. Got to get to work, no time for youtube, I know! Another Poll!!)

     

    So there you have it! Proof of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers; incontrovertible evidence of the efficacy of the Wakefield Doctrine for the self-development of  marginal personality disorders.

    (Better be safe: HEY SEARCH ENGINES!!: Britney Spears, Obama, foreclosure,free computers, teenage vampires. )

    Share
    Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,

    and after this brief word from the roger, we will continue our discussion, Where the hell is this thing going

    October 24, 2009 By

    (As previously noted, the Progenitor roger is more comfortable using Comments as (his) preferred form of communicating. While respecting that, I claim the right to edit, to the extent of copy/pasting (his) Comments into this Post.) (Other than ‘cut and paste’ and formatting as a block quote, there has been no change, alteration or modification to the Comment. It is, as the rogerian expression would have it, ‘complete and unabashed’).

     

    From the Roger:
    On my way home from work, I generally listen to a radio program called ” Fresh Air” on NPR. Interviews and articles on a wide array of stuff, hosted by Teri Gross. Today, she was interviewing Tracy Morgan, who was an SNL guy and is now on “30 Rock”. She has great skills as an interviewer, and always seems to get something good out of that scenario.
    Sadly, even she was at a bit of a loss with Tracy Morgan. I can now honestly say that I have never heard a more hopelessly Rogerian Roger than this guy. OMG. Completely mesmerized with himself, absolutely awash in self-indulgence. Lots of dead air in this interview, because Tracy had to keep fighting back tears as he ranted about the only truly important thing on this Earth.
    This sort of thing can send a Progenitor screaming in search of the nearest cliff. It is acutely painful to have to witness. I felt simultaneously angered and embarrassed. Angry, because these people are out there, and likely doing massive damage to anyone who has to interact with them. Embarrassed, because I see elements of myself clearly. This bad of a Roger should be simply cut from the herd and made to learn to survive on his own, or not. Whatever.
    I’d like to offer a point of clarification, also, to people who may be new to this blog and it’s main idea. Yes, Clark-Scott-Roger are all somewhat static personality types that may seem almost stereotypical. But- and this really is the Point, if you would indulge me- as Progenitors, we all three have grown astronomically above and away from those one-dimensional caricatures. The ” original” Clark could never have dreamed of piloting a blog. I could never have gotten out of my own way enough to ever consider contributing to it. And even though the “original” Scott hasn’t said much in this forum, that in itself is quite telling. We have all…evolved. I myself could only quote a few significant particulars that may have caused such a dramatic and yet gradual change. Maybe just basic human nature; if it doesn’t kill you, it will make you stronger. I am still fundamentally a Roger, but now have the bittersweet capacity to see the horrific learning curve that a fledgling Roger has to get through to survive. The poor bastards. If they could see all of that at one glance, that in itself would crush them.( Either that, or they’d get a gig on a network sitcom…)This would hold true for all three types, of course. But we all seem to have found our particular ways to change and still remain the same.
    So, now we have Progenitors ( Clark, Scott, and I) and Downsprings ( second-generation cadre). Some of the Downsprings are actually better examples of us than we are. I sense that we might need one more descriptive term just to fit the newbies, though. Anyone have an idea? Or does “downspring” serve that purpose as well?
    And just a last bit of field advice for those Rogers who are just awakening to these odd and awkward Clarkscottrogerian gems of truth; aim low, conserve your ammunition, and for God’s sake, stay off the radio.

    When this blog first came into existence, most of the discussion centered on, ‘no way! You actually did it! Hey, let me try!’ You know, that kind of far-reaching, insightful thought. This should come as zero surprise to anyone reading this, because if you are reading this you are one of the 100 plus million blog writers that are out there. (And the beauty part, the fatal attraction of this world of blogs is the tendency to think, ‘jeez, I know I am not (fill in your favorite writer), but if I get only one tenth of one percent of those other guys to read my Posts, I’ll be famous!’)

    The fact is, the internet is clogged with good ideas. The blogsphere has a tendency to look like a bus station from the sixties; busy, lots of interesting people, ‘hey is that guy throwing up over there?’ But hey so what?  Afterall, the Beatles spent years playing in basement night clubs in Germany and went through 18 drummers before they were an overnight success.

    Rogers’ contribution today brings home the idea that no matter how good, how original an idea might be, without a clear presentation, it is worthless. Roger speaks of the fact that we,  (the clark, the scott and the roger), have all evolved. Have changed. Does that mean the title of this blog should be  ‘the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers and the people that they have turned into and the other people that seem to act like them at times and not like them at other times’)?

    This is a serious question.

    The thing of it is, the Doctrine, while it has become a public exposition of the personal experiences of three friends, seems to have legs in the real world. Allowing for the possibility of self-delusion/illusion/allusion, (NO! say it ain’t so!), We will persist in this effort to carry the message of the Wakefield Doctrine to the world at large, one Post at a time.

    To the discussion at hand. Should the Doctrine include a new term or description to account for the change and development that we all go through in life?

    No.

    (Now that was simple enough!)

    (What do you mean, more explanation than that?) Alright. As to why it is not necessary to add categories or further elements to the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. Two reasons:

    a) the foundation of the Doctrine. clarks, scotts and rogers represent ways of interacting with the world, and we are all born with the complete range of qualities. There is no purely scottian people or rogerian or clarklike. We have the potential (at a very young age at least) to become any of the three. It just seems  that people develop into one or the other or other;

    b)by definition, the Wakefield Doctrine contains the elements of what (roger) is asking, i.e. what happens, what do we become if we, (as clarks, or scotts or rogers) develop? That answer is contained in the Wakefield Doctrine.

    You know, in a stomach turning way, Roger’s question is a sign, a signal that we are reaching a point in this thing of ours where we must change. Grow. Do something useful. But, you say, shouldn’t we wait until we have readers, followers,viewers, hits, page visits, inclusion on many other blog writers blog rolls?

    Again, no.

    If the metaphor of being a garage band blog holds, then it is time to get a bit more organised. (You all remember that there came a time for the endless jams, pointless solos to end. Time to get a set list.  Stop the silly antics between songs.) So lets start to discuss practical application of the Doctrine.

    uh, how about next Post? (meanwhile let me play this blues riff, its really something…)

    Share
    Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , , ,

    Ladies and Gentlemen, Meet the Beetles!

    October 21, 2009 By

    One of the blogs I read on a regular basis is Mel Thompson’s ‘Spatular in the Wilderness’ . I mention this  because of what he does, (that) I want to be able to do, which is write in a style that is just comfortable and fun to read. As a relative newbie (or as I like refer to myself  ‘a garage band blogger’), I read everything I can in the way of other blogs. One of the things that strikes me about the good blogs is not that they have incredible graphics and layout, or have a 7 digit hit counter score. Rather it is that they are engaging.  (To continue the music metaphor, these blogs are a lot like James Taylor. In comparison to say, Miles Davis or some opera singer with animal parts as costume elements).

    Anyway. Mel does topical shit on a frequency that keeps me coming back to the question, ‘where do these people find the time?’  I have about 90 minutes in the morning available to write. The other times during the day that I hit the blog world is limited to checking how many site-visits for the day and seeing if any of my ‘drive-by Replys’ have produced a response, (the good ones, the reactions that is, often sound like an accident victim repeatedly saying, ‘I was only going to go to the store, just a quick trip’.)  But the idea of coming up with interesting and/or entertaining words at the rate of these other bloggers, just blows my mind.

    I am discovering, in the course of the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) project, that my underlying ambition seems to be stuck on ’11’. What started as a ‘lets just see if you have the nerve to hit  Publish’ has morphed into ‘hey, you write blogs? I write blogs, hold on a minute, read/listen to this shit I just came up with…’

    Since this is a new Post and this is the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) allow me to say a few words…(jeez, does this guy ever let up?)

    (No. No I don’t.)

    Anyway. I know the question on the minds of the gathering crowdlettes of readers. ‘Am I a clark or a scott or a roger?’ I will go out on a limb here. The people who write really well…rogers. The ones that write really creative, puzzling, will he ever get to the point…clarks.  (The scotts are there but in lesser numbers at this point, by their capital letters, you will know them.)

    So, go out into the blog werld, write of this place where everyone has a name. Take comfort in knowing your form (I mean you roger, you comprise the majority of the population. And to show our appreciation, here is a little gift1) Speak of the Doctrine and when they show up we will hit them with some really baffling shit.

    (Quick Homework Assignment, then you can go back to your jobs/schools/spouses/therapists/neurotic obsession/life. Some time during the day today, you will see/hear a loud person talking loudly (relative to the environment) to another person or persons. Now the easy part is that that is probably a scott doing all the talking. Your task, however, is to determine who the target of this interaction is, a clark or a roger or even another scott. (Hint: it is not about how long they put up with this person, it is about how they regard themselves, relative to the world around them at the time)).

     

    1)You think that the 107 episode,  Directors cut, 15 DVD un-abashed edition of the compilation (with Writers notes (including what he had for breakfast) and voice-over reading of the credits by someone who knew someone who was a re-enactor who actually got hurt at an event) of all Ken Burns films, PBS episodes and commercials that last longer than most readings of the Iliad is the greatest film of all time…you might be a roger   (A big shout out to my girl Phyllie, she a fan of this shit).

    Share
    Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,
    « Older Posts