Attention, Company!

This is the body of Glenn’s response to the last CSR 101 post, with the original question following;

“The question is a good one Progenitor of All Things Roger. My answer—No scott WOULD engage in “self-improvement” as to do so would be to subscribe to some roger’s ideas of how we should live. Self-improvement, it seems to me, is a quintessentially rogerian goal. Scotts usually do not feel a need to improve. I’m pretty fucking good the way I am. ( I might swear too fucking much, but I LIKE that.)If a clark engaged in self-improvement, he would call it something else–and make up his own way to do it. That leaves rogers as the sole consumers of “self-improvement” programs. They feel everyone SHOULD engage in self-improvement. (SHOULD–a favorite rogerian word). But they are the only ones who would get involved in it in any serious way. Ever see those self-improvement gurus on PBS? Talking shit to a bunch of doe-eyed, overly needy rogers. Whole auditorium full of herds of rogers hanging on the guy’s every word. Fucking hilarious. Rogers can be such well-intentioned saps. And to further answer your question, rogers would become more rogerian from engaging in self-improvement. They would do it in herds. They would reinforce each others’ rogerness–and sanction anything that was not rogerian. A scott enrolled in self-improvement is incongruous–like a Jewish rodeo cowboy. Something you never see. I don’t mean this in a bad way.”

If  you,  as a textbook Clark, Scott, or Roger, were to engage freely and wholeheartedly in the vast self- improvement arena, would the experience simply re-inforce your primary characteristics as outlined in the Doctrine; or might it cause you to venture forth into the pristine wilderness of …those Other Two? ( there’s a signpost up ahead… you’ve just crossed into… The Doctrine Zone…)

     All right, that did it…Janie’s eyes have rolled back in her head, indicating lights out. Responses in comment form are quite acceptable, but a full-blown Post on the subject garnishes an automatic ” A” for the course ,in my book. And, maybe even a hat.

     So, I cleared it with the Man, and the hat is certainly in order.  And the “A” to go with it. Nice, nice work.  This was as well put forth as I might have hoped for; clearly thought out and stated from a classic Scottian point of view. Thanks, Dude….

     Now… are you folks getting this OK? Glenn just gave us the perfect take on a Scott’s view ( given the presumption that  self-improvement-type material would trigger a ‘ closing in” primary re-inforcement kind of response). And although we might safely presume Glenn’s work to represent the overall consensus of that group, is there anyone out there who could play devil’s advocate and explore an ” opening up willing to explore ” type of  Scottian response? And it would be great to hear from both the Clark and Roger camps, too. ( Other than Clark or I, that is. )

     What I found to be very intriguing was Glenn’s assumption ( or presumption, possibly) that I ( being a Roger) would be in full support of the notion of commercially available self- improvement stuff; and I am actually not. I always feel the Rogerian ” tug” that is meant to be delivered to the consumer public ( Rogers, pretty much) but find myself actually agreeing with Glenn overall. The really, really interesting thing was that that was not readily apparent. And in writing that post, I thought my point of view was right up front. So what does that indicate? A simple nuance in my style of delivery, or….do we all tend to interpret things according to our own standpoint? And that indicates to me where the next signpost will lead us towards… Mr. Serling, if you would be so kind….

ON THE NEXT POST: ” See What Thou Wilt”