(Man, tough Post.)
I mean, I know what I want to talk about, but it’s how to talk about it that has me dialing: 1-800-kitchensink.
You do not want to know how many drafts it has taken to get even this far. But write it I will. (remind me to tell you later about how helpful our Miss Sullivan has been).
Let’s start at the beginning (…”and go on till you come to the end” L Carroll):
‘The Wakefield Doctrine is built upon the idea that everyone experiences the world/reality differently, from one of three overlapping but distinctive perspectives… maintains that this characteristic perception of reality can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers.’
…we also possess the potential to see the world as a clark or a scott or a roger. It is only the predominance of qualities from one (over the other two) that makes us what we are. No one is only clarklike or scottian or rogerian. (source: About: The Wakefield Doctrine (italics added).
Why quote that which we all know?
To assert balance.
In the last few Posts we have received a good amount of input from the scottian perspective. We appreciate this. The Doctrine is being read by more and more (repeat) Readers because of this input.
(and)…it is the nature of scotts to present strong opinion on all matters, the topic of rogers being no exception.
(All Opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the person, character or self-identified entity attaching their names to said Opinion. These Opinions do not necessarily reflect the Opinions of other Progenitors or Downsprings. All Comments are possibly incorrect, with the exception of those from the one with the marked penchant for parenthes(es))1
So, let us go right to the matter at hand.
Rogers are awful…
they are awfully opinionated and parochial, they are awfully judgemental and closed minded and obsessed with the mundane and the measurable and the repeatable and the consistent and the reliable and…it is a good thing we have rogers or we would all be living on the open savannah, sleeping in trees and looking over our shoulders every time we tried to have a drink of water.
Our scottian brethren (in fact our individual scottian aspect) are not incorrect in their assessment of the foibles of the rogerian nature; they are simply limited. Their Comments are direct and without nuance or subtly, you know: scottian. But neither are they (the scotts) at fault, they are merely expressing their perception.
Having said that, I would not want to fly to Vegas in a plane designed by scotts (or for that matter, a plane built by clarks).
In the first case, the plane would have 5 over-sized jet engines stuck on various sections of the fuselage, mostly towards the back of the plane, painted bright colors and the pilot would be expected to be able to stick his head out the window to scream at other passing jets. In the second case, the interior would consist primarily of couches (with pillows and quilts), that while comfortable, would tend to slide around (a lot) and there would be 6 or 7 bathrooms taking up the entire back half of the plane.
(You get my point).
It is a given here at the Doctrine that those who participate are assumed to be able to handle whatever forms of interactions occur. And while we maintain the editorial right to shape expressions of opinions, it is with no small amount of pride that we can say that has not happened yet. What you read is the direct and un-abashed thoughts and opinions of the contributors.
But that is only half of the challenge we faced sitting down at the keyboard here.
The other half (and possibly the half with the greater significance for this thing of ours) is how to speak to them (rogers and scotts and clarks), as brother Malcom said:
“And during the few moments that we have left, we want to talk, right down to
earth, in a language that everybody here can easily understand.” (Malcolm X)
The simple fact of the matter is that if not written in the ‘language’ of the type, no message will get through. Another way to say it: if I do not manage to ‘speak scottian‘ to a scott, my message will be misinterpreted at best and totally unheard at worst. If I cannot speak to a roger in the language of the herd then I will be treated as noise.
This is the dilemma we face with this Post.
But, fuck it. We are writing (this) which is not the same as assuming that we are communicating (with the Reader).
Hey scott! Hey!! Don’t eat all of the local herd or you may find yourself having to go outside of your own hunting grounds…getting hungry…getting weak…finding new hunting grounds and finding…a whole new pack of scotts…(and we all know how social and co operative scotts are). (Can you say, ‘the weak and old simply get left behind to die’? I knew you could!)
Hey roger…get over it. The herd is all there is… until you look up. Once you see the herd, I hate to burst your bubble pal, you ain’t in the herd anymore. And try as you might, you can never, never bury yourself in historical novels and documentaries by Saint Ken, never go back to that bovine indifference to the werld. And those scotts that you love supplying food for and the clarks that make you feel so better than…guess what?
They know that you know. And know that you know that they know…
oh clark…don’t think you can type yourself out of this one…no, there will be no literary constructs to divert the Reader. No mf…you of all of the three forms, you are the one to indulge in the ‘people? can’t we all just get along’ bullshit. Which, when you really look at it, is a sin against all that the Doctrine stands for… goddamn dude, you really think that just sitting there and typing this shit week after week was going to change you into the real person you have always been afraid that you are not? Well, you may be on track but you better be prepared to step outside of your perfectly defined-surely-this-includes-all-inferences-and-possibilties little world. As the Lady would say, ‘You been told’.
Welll…that sort of went all toyota on us, didn’t it? (Heh heh) …oh Janie!
what? no…busy now…come back.. oh alright! Now I am called in to lighten things up? Any of you real people/Readers think through the implications of using a ‘literary construct’ to lend a sense of reasonableness to the shenanigans that go on around here? Even a hint of how messed up that is? No, I didn’t, think you had…
Hey, did you know that the old janitor/music video guy (Mr. B, I believe) was once a professional musician? yeah! he was just telling me…no, not too old man tries to recapture… but I am an ‘A’ student in the Doctrine and I did not know that a roger could deliberately give up his rogerian expression…yeah me too. Anyway he had to run and left the following music said that if you don’t try too hard you will get the connection…whatever
…can I go home now? this does get just a bit tedious…
1) In case of disagreement, the protocol will be followed:
we are right and you are wrong…
About clarkscottroger
Isn’t it interesting how Scotts ( and none too few Clarks) always deliver ” strong opinion” in only bold and decisive strokes, while Rogers can barely manage to be ” awfully opinionated”? How parochial is that? Sounds like a quote from Hitler, while he was channeling Machiavelli. Should I be expecting a Kristallnacht any time soon?
Isn’t it interesting how Scotts ( and none too few Clarks) always deliver ” strong opinion” in only bold and decisive strokes, while Rogers can barely manage to be ” awfully opinionated”? How parochial is that? Sounds like a quote from Hitler, while he was channeling Machiavelli. Should I be expecting a Kristallnacht any time soon?
Did someone’s feelings get hurt? Anyway, not sure I “get” the connection with the song–But LOVED the music. One of my favorite performers doing one of my all-time favorite songs.Beautiful–whatever it was supposed to mean. I attended a folk concert once. Sat in the front row. Singer did El Paso, but kept forgetting the lyrics. I started feeding them to him from 5 feet away. Got him through the song. He gave me a free CD for that. There are two other “sequel” songs to El Paso. One is called Felina, the life story of the girl. the other is called El Paso City in which Marty Robbins is mystified about how the story of the original song “came to him”. Rual Malo, a Cubano from Miami, singing a song about a Mexican girl in a Texas city.
Did someone’s feelings get hurt? Anyway, not sure I “get” the connection with the song–But LOVED the music. One of my favorite performers doing one of my all-time favorite songs.Beautiful–whatever it was supposed to mean. I attended a folk concert once. Sat in the front row. Singer did El Paso, but kept forgetting the lyrics. I started feeding them to him from 5 feet away. Got him through the song. He gave me a free CD for that. There are two other “sequel” songs to El Paso. One is called Felina, the life story of the girl. the other is called El Paso City in which Marty Robbins is mystified about how the story of the original song “came to him”. Rual Malo, a Cubano from Miami, singing a song about a Mexican girl in a Texas city.
Roger! I recognised the words…how wise and powerful am I?
Read closer binyon, “I did not make that statement, but you know all animals with ears like yours..”
Anyway, the keynote to this Post is/was ‘re-asserting’ balance…pulling back to a ‘center’…we have the scotts in a feeding frenzy, we have rogers uni-laterally declaring that ‘god is dead’ time to burn down the church…you know a normal day at the Doctrine…
Glenn, the song is there because it is a tale of a roger…
Roger, if you will, please tell them/us/Glenn the way of recognising a rogerian artifact…
We are all getting to the level of picking up the ‘tone’ of the type (clark, scott or roger). Glenn did this with his call on the Green Acres contest. (Tell us again how you knew who was which, Glenn).
Roger I know that El Paso is ‘rogerian‘ but can you contribute the ‘ear training’ to understanding how you know? (Or would that be too high and fuckin mighty for you deign to contribute to this thing.?)
And if you people get tired of the mental challenge practised on these pages, you can get your asses over to Pixie’s blog (www.secondlifewithpixieblonde.wordpress.com) (hey Glenn Pixie has more photos up). Go visit her and leave a nice Comment.
Roger! I recognised the words…how wise and powerful am I?
Read closer binyon, “I did not make that statement, but you know all animals with ears like yours..”
Anyway, the keynote to this Post is/was ‘re-asserting’ balance…pulling back to a ‘center’…we have the scotts in a feeding frenzy, we have rogers uni-laterally declaring that ‘god is dead’ time to burn down the church…you know a normal day at the Doctrine…
Glenn, the song is there because it is a tale of a roger…
Roger, if you will, please tell them/us/Glenn the way of recognising a rogerian artifact…
We are all getting to the level of picking up the ‘tone’ of the type (clark, scott or roger). Glenn did this with his call on the Green Acres contest. (Tell us again how you knew who was which, Glenn).
Roger I know that El Paso is ‘rogerian‘ but can you contribute the ‘ear training’ to understanding how you know? (Or would that be too high and fuckin mighty for you deign to contribute to this thing.?)
And if you people get tired of the mental challenge practised on these pages, you can get your asses over to Pixie’s blog (www.secondlifewithpixieblonde.wordpress.com) (hey Glenn Pixie has more photos up). Go visit her and leave a nice Comment.
I agree with Glenn on the El Paso choice, very cool in a prehistoric way. Triggered a long -buried memory of my dad standing in a very formal posture ( one arm behind his back, the other hand tucked in Napoleon-style ) and singing this straight-up,no accompaniment, Irish tenor style; so thanks for the endorfin rush. Nice. Back then, the songs were thought to carry themselves, and the performer was totally secondary. Got to admire that. And never heard of Malo, but I like his version. It seems to carry better by slowing the tempo a bit.
Also do not get the reference as being necessarily Rogerian. Go figure. If asked, I would have called the primary voice as either a Roger or Clark, and the guy shot in the bar as a Scott. You could actually call it in any combination and come up with a decent argument for it. And the girl seems like a bit of a Scott, too.
No, my feelings are not hurt. After reading and ingesting the last post’s “balance” theme, I meant my ascerbic comment to attempt to illustrate that there is no balance,and there never has been. If anything, there is an uncomfortable alliance of Scotts and Clarks, simply because they are more alike than either is probably comfortable admitting to. But both clearly see Rogers as the alien, and therefore as the irresistable target. Not the best news for Rogers, but that is the natural reality of it. The only saving grace is that the Doctrine does seem to suggest moving towards a “center” where civilizing influences hold more sway. Sardonically, Clarks and Scotts have much further to travel to any perceived center than Rogers do, with us being the very soul of moderation and all. Or maybe that’s just another Rogerian construct…
I agree with Glenn on the El Paso choice, very cool in a prehistoric way. Triggered a long -buried memory of my dad standing in a very formal posture ( one arm behind his back, the other hand tucked in Napoleon-style ) and singing this straight-up,no accompaniment, Irish tenor style; so thanks for the endorfin rush. Nice. Back then, the songs were thought to carry themselves, and the performer was totally secondary. Got to admire that. And never heard of Malo, but I like his version. It seems to carry better by slowing the tempo a bit.
Also do not get the reference as being necessarily Rogerian. Go figure. If asked, I would have called the primary voice as either a Roger or Clark, and the guy shot in the bar as a Scott. You could actually call it in any combination and come up with a decent argument for it. And the girl seems like a bit of a Scott, too.
No, my feelings are not hurt. After reading and ingesting the last post’s “balance” theme, I meant my ascerbic comment to attempt to illustrate that there is no balance,and there never has been. If anything, there is an uncomfortable alliance of Scotts and Clarks, simply because they are more alike than either is probably comfortable admitting to. But both clearly see Rogers as the alien, and therefore as the irresistable target. Not the best news for Rogers, but that is the natural reality of it. The only saving grace is that the Doctrine does seem to suggest moving towards a “center” where civilizing influences hold more sway. Sardonically, Clarks and Scotts have much further to travel to any perceived center than Rogers do, with us being the very soul of moderation and all. Or maybe that’s just another Rogerian construct…
the fault for the appearance of an alliance (with an attendant implication of a conscious effort to single out rogers) lies with me, without doubt.
…entirely wihout basis in fact, I might add, but certainly can see how it is being perceived as such.
You are on track, nevertheless, you are simply limiting yourself in trying to assay the dynamics that are there. Or put in a way that can be easily understood (quoting myself, quoting Malcom…damn! this thing is getting strange), but simply put the alliance (clark-scott) is there because that is where the current activity is…
Not in any manner critical but, the Doctrine must (and will) be served, so if there are a pack of scotts running around the neighborhood, then I will run around the neighborhood with them. Until a certain point. And then I will step back and perhaps say, “where the fuck is Cesar when you really need him”?
You are both overlooking the simple fact that rogers and scotts are representin the main of the human experience…scotts act…rogers feel.
Both, nearly tangible aspects of human nature; on the other appendage we see clarks…think…create…traffic in the non-real/un-rational.
(“Hey Janie! stop at the store and contemplate picking up/acquiring a set quanitity of abstact/creative thought, won’t you?”)
I will submit that neither of you can see me other than in reference/inference/conspiring with the other.
Not complaining…just stating what is.
Am enjoying the level of discourse. But we like people have a saying, ‘if you are not moving forward then you are sliding backward’. And so these Posts will continue being something/anything(T. Rundgren)
The tone, the voice if you will, of these Posts will continue to vary, but hopefully will stay the same as its ever been(T. Heads)
But both of you scamps need to understand that nothing remains the same (except the Doctrine, of course). I say thing because as I encounter people directly (SL and elsewhere) my efforts to convey the Wakefield Doctrine to them alters my style of expressing it in other venues.
(now this is the point where the ‘alliance’ shifts to a roger/scott pairing, usually it is the roger pointing something out to the scott, who thinking it is time to move a bit further down the buffet table will concur…’why yes, roger and ever notice how the clarks always…’)
You been told…
Ok, then…so,per usual, rather than discovering an uncovered Doctrinesque grain of truth through the steadfast application of my steely and unfailing logic…more like BPH- maddened old man trips over said grain while running to the bathroom in the dark…don’t smile, you bastards, I actually did that once…
So, if Rogers are convinced of Scott/Clark alliances, and Clarks will attest to Scott/Roger alliances,then can we safely assume that…yes, Janie, someone has to say it…will a Scott swear witness to Roger/Clark alliances? And… if all that is true, then maybe there really is a “center” to this business that we all perpetually circle around…geez, I kind of feel like Galileo. Maybe I’m not the epicenter of the universe after all. Maybe I should run to the bathroom in the dark more often.
the fault for the appearance of an alliance (with an attendant implication of a conscious effort to single out rogers) lies with me, without doubt.
…entirely wihout basis in fact, I might add, but certainly can see how it is being perceived as such.
You are on track, nevertheless, you are simply limiting yourself in trying to assay the dynamics that are there. Or put in a way that can be easily understood (quoting myself, quoting Malcom…damn! this thing is getting strange), but simply put the alliance (clark-scott) is there because that is where the current activity is…
Not in any manner critical but, the Doctrine must (and will) be served, so if there are a pack of scotts running around the neighborhood, then I will run around the neighborhood with them. Until a certain point. And then I will step back and perhaps say, “where the fuck is Cesar when you really need him”?
You are both overlooking the simple fact that rogers and scotts are representin the main of the human experience…scotts act…rogers feel.
Both, nearly tangible aspects of human nature; on the other appendage we see clarks…think…create…traffic in the non-real/un-rational.
(“Hey Janie! stop at the store and contemplate picking up/acquiring a set quanitity of abstact/creative thought, won’t you?”)
I will submit that neither of you can see me other than in reference/inference/conspiring with the other.
Not complaining…just stating what is.
Am enjoying the level of discourse. But we like people have a saying, ‘if you are not moving forward then you are sliding backward’. And so these Posts will continue being something/anything(T. Rundgren)
The tone, the voice if you will, of these Posts will continue to vary, but hopefully will stay the same as its ever been(T. Heads)
But both of you scamps need to understand that nothing remains the same (except the Doctrine, of course). I say thing because as I encounter people directly (SL and elsewhere) my efforts to convey the Wakefield Doctrine to them alters my style of expressing it in other venues.
(now this is the point where the ‘alliance’ shifts to a roger/scott pairing, usually it is the roger pointing something out to the scott, who thinking it is time to move a bit further down the buffet table will concur…’why yes, roger and ever notice how the clarks always…’)
You been told…
Ok, then…so,per usual, rather than discovering an uncovered Doctrinesque grain of truth through the steadfast application of my steely and unfailing logic…more like BPH- maddened old man trips over said grain while running to the bathroom in the dark…don’t smile, you bastards, I actually did that once…
So, if Rogers are convinced of Scott/Clark alliances, and Clarks will attest to Scott/Roger alliances,then can we safely assume that…yes, Janie, someone has to say it…will a Scott swear witness to Roger/Clark alliances? And… if all that is true, then maybe there really is a “center” to this business that we all perpetually circle around…geez, I kind of feel like Galileo. Maybe I’m not the epicenter of the universe after all. Maybe I should run to the bathroom in the dark more often.