Month: November 2009 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3 Month: November 2009 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3

it’s the first ‘find the clark’ day, hooray, hooray!

November 5, 2009 By

Thursday and it’s ‘find the clark‘ day already. Where does the time go?

(Being the First ‘find the clark‘ day a little bit of guidance and ground rules….HEY! look out! hes going to try and teach shit again. ‘what a clark‘)

Hey! rather than tell you what you are looking for…(clarks, I need you to leave the room, stop reading this thing. We want you to act ‘naturally’ (ha, ha) today.)… First lets look at some quick film clips:

Woody

Flo

(Arent they both so precious?)

(You might get ‘lucky’ and have a clark in your environment who has not yet figured out how not to be a ‘blue monkey1)

The rules are simple: find the clark in your world today. Don’t do anything (…scott, I’m talking to you). Just learn spot a clark. Male or female does not matter.
The obvious point (obvious point? no! tell me it ain’t so!), is that the clarks comprise the least visible of the three types. They wear protective coloration the way that lesbians wear leather. But this blending in is very different from the homogenous look of a herd of rogers, or the loud and flashy colors of the lone scott.

Anyway, here are some quick tips for spotting the elusive clarks: the clarklike females love their shoes, the bigger, the clunkier, the better. Also something strange with their heads. (The video clip of Flo is perfect. She seems normal enough from a distance, but then you see the shoes, and when she starts talking, her eyes go all, ‘hello out there! how is planet earth today?’)
As to the male clarks? Damn, just walk up and talk to them. (Eye contact? We don’t need no steenkin eye contact). And also look for the ‘hunched shoulders’. Acquired as a result of years as a ‘young person’, anticipating the spitball from the back of the room. (yeah, scott, nobody spotted who the adhd kid was, did they?).

So, go get ’em.

1)’Blue Monkey’ was a famous experiment where some scottian psychologist (yeah, like that would happen) convinced some rogers that it would be fun to take one monkey from the group, paint him blue and send him home. You can guess the outcome. (Love the schadenfreude streak, scott. Wait till ‘tag a scott day!”)

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

when the moon hit your eye, like a big pizza pie, thats amore

November 4, 2009 By

Consider the topic of love. Love figures into probably 80% of the Posts written and love is at the foundation 50% of the blogs themselves.

Brotherly love, sisterly love, love for family and love of country. Love stinks, love is everywhere, yet all you neeed is love and let me tell you ’bout a girl I love.
Love walks in and love walks out the door. I mean, let us seriously and lovingly consider a love that endures and a love that dares not speak it’s name, all for the love of god and love22,

love, its the sphere in  blogosphere.

Lets take a look, a long loving look, and if you will open your eyes and close your mind, then you will see what the Wakefield Doctrine has to offer you, and me and the person you love… but will never meet.

Love is… because it is clearly such an individual experience, so much so that nearly all of art and a whole bunch of science makes the subject of love a thing to be shared and cherished, feared and resented, a thing to live for and die for the lack of and the surfeit of… (you know…)
Damn! this thing called love has to be everything to everyone and still never be allowed to be understood.

The Wakefield Doctrine claims ‘gnosis by right of assumption’ and seein that that love is a wonderful thing, whatever we say here is as right as anything else that anyone else in the world might say.

(How the fuck can this be?) More the question, how can this love ‘thing’ be as non-rational, irrational, pan-rational, it can drive men to die and women to weep, yet there is no definition to contain it all. But you know and I know that if I never get another comment except for one, it will be here on this topic in this Post.

(…its ‘that old black magic has me in it’s spell’ and ‘let tell you about a thing called love, a crazy little thing called love.’

If there is any such a thing as ‘the supernatural’, we don’t have to look any further than the space that lies between ourselves and the world. Between these two there is nothing else and despite that, this is where love exists. You want to see love, feel it’s power then look no further than the outside of your face.  This is as if god and the devil got bored one day and realised if those new things, Man was going to get to pick between them, it might not be fair. So they agreed, lets make love and hate, fear and courage all the same. That’ll hold the little bastards. By doing this they decided that our thinking, our reflecting, our map, our doctrine, what we think we know about the world we live in, everything there is, is in the final darkness, something that know.

So it leaves us in the position where the sanest thing we can think is: ‘there is no distance between that which I think about and the object itself. That is non-rational. That is love.’

Share
Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: ,

unh!…good god! what is it good for?

November 2, 2009 By

(Thank you Edwin, great question!)

[The following Post is another in the continuing effort to present the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) in a manner that is accessible, enjoyable and will cause a First Time Reader to go into the Pages of this blog to get more information. The hope and the goal is to write ‘in 25 words or less’ a description of the use and the benefits (of the Doctrine.)]

Thinking, reflecting, considering, having an internal dialogue, call it what you will but the inside of our heads is an always interesting, often busy place. We are, to one degree or another, self-aware. It is this internal environment that we are concerned with today in this Post. To start, a question:
What is the good, the use, the benefit of what goes on inside our heads? 
Most of everything that goes on inside our heads, is our efforts at trying to make sense of the world that we find ourselves in each day. We try, and in doing so, hopefully are able to live out the day as comfortably/profitably/virtuously as possible. 

Set aside the ‘yeah, but you don’t understand how or why my life is the way it is’, for now.
You’re right, no one understands your life.  (Damn! you exist as a pre-supposed Reader! Tell me about understanding another!  To mis-quote Firesign Theatre, ‘how can I know what you feel, thats metaphysically absurd, man!’)
It is not necessary to understand the particulars of a person’s life in order to talk about how we live and act in life.

For the purposes of this Post, lt is agreed that no one can know what is going on in another person’s mind, at least in terms of the personal-reality-specific details.  What we can agree on is that whatever the process, it is probably very similar among all people, young/old, female/male, this culture/that culture, (not counting some fundamentalists and most people who think that  ‘America’s Got Talent’ is great entertainment).  But most people share a similar interior/mental environment.

The thing is we all seem to feel a need for, be attracted to, or require ourselves to create a Doctrine.  A doctrine or a religion or a belief system, the Golden Rule, logical empiricism, call it what you like, all self-aware humans seem to share this need. And what people seem to need is a map.  A map to use to try and make sense of the world.   Everyone, everywhere, has a map in their heads.
These maps are made up of assumptions and values that serve as a guide to ‘getting through the day’.  Examples of assumptions that make up the map: ‘you can’t get something for nothing’, ‘nice guys finish last’, ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, ‘damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead’, etc, etc. You get the idea.

All people acquire and use a ‘map’ (doctrine) in order to make sense of what they experience in the course of living each day. Which is to say inter-acting with other people.  And ‘interacting’ means behavior. Lets say that the common elements in how we choose to interact with other people is a product of following our individual maps. And over time, these common elements become routine and stylized. This will be referred to as behavior.  But first a question that must be resolved before we can continue, the question of…why?

The ‘why’, does not matter in this Post.  It does not matter ‘why’ we all have maps or doctrines or any other term.  Further the ‘how’ of all this doesn’t matter much either.
We can spend the rest of the day or an entire lifetime describing how this doctrine thing manifests itself.  Again, not mattering so much.

The ‘what’ is where it is at. The ‘what’ is the list of elements, landmarks, on your  map.

This is topic of this here Post here.  We are going to look at the Wakefield Doctrine in the context of it being a map, no different from religion or philosophy, morality or practicality.  The question that we need to answer is, does it (the Doctrine) offer us something as a map, that the the other maps do not?  How well does the Wakefield Doctrine serve this purpose and how easy is it to use?

The Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is a simple, fun and useful way to look at the world.  Just like any of the other ‘doctrines’ mentioned above, the Wakefield Doctrine serves as a guide/interpreter of the world we experience,  but without out the excess baggage of  mainstream doctrines such as religion, morality, good citizenship.

What advantage does the Doctrine offer?
Well, for starters it is fun.  Now fun is pointless without value, (stop right there! which of the three thinks that)?
OK, lets set that aside for now.  The Wakefield Doctrine will provide  a map that allows you to see the world as other people sees it.  Even a people you do not know. 
The theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is predicated on the notion that we all have a predilection as to how we view the world at large and these predilections tend to gather themselves into three distinct groups: what we call the clarks, scotts and rogers. 

The rest of this blog addresses the characteristics of each of these three ways of seeing the world. Three distinct maps.

Read. Learn. Comment. Buy a hat.

Pretty simple, isn’t it?

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,
Newer Posts »