Yes, this is a CSR class. Without a fake classroom or imaginary students. No window dressing of any kind. I guess George Clooney is on his own.
Today, I need to address a particular anomaly in the Doctrine that has had me rather at a loss for some months now. And to quickly touch on one of my favorite personal aspects of life in general; synchronicity. Because I had no sooner decided that it was time to finally begin writing a post that addressed that anomaly, when the damned thing fairly fell from the sky. I find myself, once again, astounded at the sense of presence of …something extraordinary. I just wish I had the presence of mind to get it, whatever it is, but alas…
I”ll be referring to the last post’s mention of an affinity that exists between clarks and scotts. After presuming that I had somehow uncovered something heretofore unknown in the annals of Doctrinism…. the very thing itself is casually mentioned in today’s post. Astounding and amazing. Sometimes the universe will just grab you by the neck and shake you around like a sock puppet, as if to say… you’ve sat on it too long, it’s time, now get on with it. Well, then.
I suppose that this affinity is pretty common discourse to clarks and scotts ( I have been calling it a symbiosis), but let me assure all of you; to rogers, it is quite occult.We simply don’t see it. Not to say we wouldn’t understand it, if illustrated. We just don’t have a nature that would necessarily notice it. I strongly suppose that this symbiosis is very much a second nature to clarks and scotts.
So what’s the big deal, you ask? Well, an understanding of this would greatly enhance a roger’s perception and therefore his practical application of the Wakefield Doctrine to any situation. It might clear up many a misunderstanding, and it might just save your life in the extremes.
At this point, I’m sure the purer scotts have shut this off to go get a sandwich, and there might be a camouflaged clark monitoring this from a distance. So I suppose that my reader’s circle is down to just the rogers. That’s fine, because those other ones already know this; and if you’re a roger at heart, then you don’t. So here it is. And you’re not going to like it.
The affinity/ symbiosis is based on a shared disdain for rogers. It is the common groundwork for all of their perceptions of rogers, and serves as the springboard to all their interactions with us. They each have a particular personal mythology that tends to define them as a clark or a scott. Nothing new there at all; you have your own too, and it leans you towards being more a roger than not. The critical difference occurs precisely here; theirs tells them that they are vastly superior to rogers. And that colors all of their interactions with us; they have it completely in common. We tend to be the shared object of derision, the obvious target.
By way of comparison, a roger would tend to a very eclectic view of this personal mythology business. We would go with an inherently pacifistic universal model in which clarks, scotts and rogers all live in a balance of power with a shared sense of respect. Diversity, man…
Well, #%*# that. It’ not real. While we’re busy singing ” We Are The World” and trying to figure out how to feed the planet, they’ve already got it solved. If they kill you,then they eat well for a few days, and screw the planet. Actually, to be specific; the clarks also have to eat, but don’t have the stomach for the kill. So they find a way to get the scotts to do it for them. Symbiosis.
That particular point brings me back to the original video clip ever used in this blog. That is a great example. ( Joe Pesci/ scott viciously attacks roger guy in bar, clark guy watches passively….remember?) Were there another roger there, he would have intervened to try to save the guy. But wait… there was someone else… who simply watched and waited. He’d gone to all the trouble to set that up, he certainly wasn’t going to prevent it by then. So you have a stereotypic scott killing a stereotypic roger, while a stereotypic clark stands by in complete silent assent. And there it is…the affinity.
This is the clip that the Progenitor scott actually objected so strenuously to ( and might very well have kept him from participating much). This occurred simply because he had already long since transformed into something other than a pure scott. I suppose I might have objected too; after all, you still have a dead roger in the end.
So, my little band of rogers….what does all this boil down to?
I just want you all to be aware of this, because they might be in your lives as spouses, co-workers, family; any number of things. But one thing they are decidedly not, in their own eyes; equals. They hold themselves to be far superior, and greatly entitled; their mythology tells them so. No amount of reasoning can alter that. So be very careful, and very diligent. They are predators, and they will persist. And should it ever come to dire straits, then do not sell your lives cheaply; fight them with all you have. They would expect us to be hesitant and intimidated; but often, a pack will break and run when confronted with singular courage. And if you’re not alone…then just open up the herd a bit, and let him in. He won’t believe his good luck, and then just… do what comes naturally.
In my next offering, I hope to explore this question, as a logical extension of the symbiosis; are scotts and clarks actually different creatures, or are they both just variations of a single entity? ( which means that our world premise is not based on three personality types, but really just two. The problem is- which two?) Food for thought.
About clarkscottroger
“The affinity/ symbiosis is based on a shared disdain for rogers. It is the common groundwork for all of their perceptions of rogers, and serves as the springboard to all their interactions with us.”
I am afraid I must disagree with the statement above. It, in fact, has nothing to do with rogers. It is more a recognition of a “lacking” within a clark to manifest more readily the “hardcore” aspects of a scott‘s behavior(without thinking about it too much).
Simplistically, it is the scott‘s ability to just “act” that the “thinking” clark struggles to incorporate. The rogerian “feeling” is already present in many clarks and often obstructs a clark‘s ability to simply act/react.
Clarks look for the path by which energy (you know the term “emotional content”) can be “directed” in such a way as to allow them (clarks) access to “places” that, left to the “thinking” clark alone, may not be possible.
Personally, I aspire to find the “perfect balance” of clark, scott and roger within myself. But you know very well that the “purer scott” just getting back from the kitchen has no such aspiration and many rogers are sitting back feeling indignant and insulted.
Examples, whether written or viewable, in this blog are assumed to be read/viewed with perspective and awareness of context. At least that is my take on it. It is not a contest about “who” is better – a clark, scott or roger. Having said this, tell me more.
Feed me. I am hungry.
Wow! I want to argue with this–but it rings true. The part about the underlying disdain that is. Clarks and scotts are definitely not the same entities however. The disdain is natural–not malicious. Pack animals it seems would have a hard time respecting herd animals. No heirarchy, no competition..no …fun. Hard to understand. The maudlin, victim-y, whiny, judgmental emotionalism of rogers is a perfect storm of behaviors that scotts and clarks would not respect. It amounts to deniable agression. Rogers love to make others feel morally deficient. It is done under cover of being “helpful”, or even assertive(for a roger). But it damages people. And then the roger can disown any responsibilty for the damage. The roger always sees himself as the “good guy”. Passive-aggressiveness is the epitome of roger-ness. Scotts respect pure, open aggressiveness. More honest. Frankly, its more effective too. When you deal with a scott you may feel that you’ve been put down, but you will not feel that you’ve been deceived. As far as symbiosis…clarks just follow logic. They affiliate with effective people…and watch with detached amusement as ineffective people struggle and fail. Nothing hostile here–just real. I note that the tone of this post seems to be trying not to come across victim-y. I do respect that effort. It tries, but ultimately, the tone is decidedly rogerian. What else could it be? I suppose some will feel accused and judged by what you have written here. I do not feel that way–now that I’ve had time to digest it. At first, in typical scottian fashion, I reacted with a fuck you. Then, I thought. Not very scott-like, but I do it anyway from time to time. Now, I believe you may have noted something worth noting. Or maybe we take it a step further. Maybe each one of the forms has certain behaviors or traits that annoy, offend, or infuriate one of the others. And,(to explain the symbiosis), each one of the forms have behaviors or traits that one the others find admirable, attractive, or beneficial. How do scotts piss off rogers? How do clarks annoy scotts? How do rogers infuriate clarks? How do scotts inspire clarks? How do rogers please scotts? You get the picture. Very interesting and thought-provoking stuff. The doctrine continues to….become.
Now that I swallowed that (burp), I find I am still not satiated. Rather, I want “some more, please”.
(Glenn)…very good response! You have suggested to us a line of inquiry heretofore un-explored, ‘points of antipathy’ between the three. As much as we all know the points of similarities (among the three) all that does is point out what is basic to the the Doctrine, i.e. we all share all the characteristic, it is a matter pre-ponderance of features. Looking at ‘points of antipathy’, might un-cover a whole area of understanding (of the Doctrine.)
(Roger) you do know how to work the calendar, you are Posting on one of two ‘reading days’, that seems to represent the visit pattern of the Doctrine these days, all in all though, not bad. Unfortunately, I agree with your assessement of getting to the stage late, sort of Hendrix playing Woodstock at dawn to the 26 people left.
I will take issue with your position of we like people looking down on you…later.
But to both of you I will say, ‘that is what the hope of this blog has been; informed, reflective discourse among intelligent people…(wait for it…)
oh yeah…Glenn?…Roger?
fuck you, both of you, you instinct dependent, run-at-sudden-noises, humans barely out of the introspective muck…fuck you
From the Roger:
Well, for those of us still in the muck…I think this was a milestone of a day. I expected to be driven out on a pitchfork,if anything, and your responses were illuminating, challenging, inspiring, and a total surprise. I appreciate them greatly, and am humbled. Thank you.
The pangs have abated somewhat gentlemen, but if you don’t mind, I will remain seated….. awaiting the next course.
Very good, enjoyed this one. Of course there will be those of you that say “well of course you like it, you are a Roger”. There is something to take from the article and the comments. I don’t know that I agree necessarily with the idea that Clarks “look down” on everyone but they tend to have all these great ideas and suggestions for others and don’t always take their own advice and lordy, they do take forever to decide on something, anything!!! I can’t speak to Scotts as, even tho I’m sure I have interacted with them during my life-time I tend to draw from the Clarks and Rogers that have been more involved in my life. That said, this has been one of the more interesting articles in a while – sometimes I read the articles and wonder “what was the point?” and so I don’t keep up with it at all times – afterall I do have to make the world a better, happier place:) I will probably read this again and maybe come away with a different perception but for now – Thanks.
A formidable feast for the mind. Very thought provoking. I did, however, as you said, leave and come back. I needed some real food. You know, being a scott and all. It sounds to me like you are feeling ganged up on and perhaps even feeling left out due to the so-called symbiotic relationship between the clarks and scotts. And as a result, the need to explain, even to aplogize, for rogers of the world. Unlike a clark or scott, who don’t really don’t give a shit about what others think about them.
ok…let m be sure I am reading this correctly…
(a) roger is complaining that he is not being included with and among clarks….
(a) scott is making a case for understanding among all of us…
(a) clark is getting angry with the lack predation going on in this ‘conversation’…
(…and this is compounded by additional rogerian Commentators defending the clarity of expression on the part of clarks…
…followed by scott, normally observed at the center of a whirlwind of carrion and other bodyparts as she walks down the street, calmly reminding us that she left as directed and would now like to add a Comment…if we did not mind!!)
(to paraphrase Woody Allen: “if you would all excuse me, I have a blog to write that involves people from the planet earth”…)
The doctrine on acid. Marmalade skies and all that. Now EVERYTHING is fucked up. Clark…fuck you is what scotts say—not clarks. Me..a peacemaker. Roger, I don’t know what the fuck has happened here. Everybody just go back to being the same assholes you were before all this happened. I got a baaaaad feelin’ about this…
Thank you Glenn. Succinct and dead on.
(to paraphrase Mr. Wolf from ‘Pulp Fiction’)
“Fine job, people. We may get out of this yet…Well, let’s not start (shakin each other’s hands) quite yet. Phase One is complete…”
Since it is soon time to move on and get a new Post up, one little thing I might suggest. Text is cheap, try this binyons:
Glenn: explain to Downspring#1 what she needs to do about her current job situation (under-employed as a cashier) but, explain it as a roger would;
Downspring#1: tell Roger that he needs to look at this blog-writing in a context that conveys the need to be more disciplined and predictable but without limiting himself with the notion that what he is writing is separate but equal to the bulk of the writings, but tell him as a scott would;
AKH: say something to convince the Readers out there to make Comments on this page but use the ‘voice’ of a roger;
MJM: you live with a scott, tell us here at the Doctrine how you know that you provide the essential balance in life to the wild, spontaneous activity of scotts;
Roger: (roger, roger, roger) go ahead, Two Part Invention: tell us how you feel about the Doctrine but tell it as a clark would and then back up your statement in purely scottian terms.
(and in answer to the question that at least one of you , if not all have), you’re reading it.
(Jeez, don’t you think I did not take that into account?)
No, this is NOT a CSR class. CSR 101 does not exist without the “fake classroom” and Janie Sullivan.
You can’t have it both ways. (or the way you want it)
It is what it is.
The blog that is the Wakefield Doctrine is very much like a classroom – it is a place to learn, understand and grow. It is a place of discourse, a place where ideas, opinions are shared. A place in which the exchange of these ideas facilitates self development and awareness.
And so I lapse into clarklike verbiage…and imagery – Tom Cruise (Collateral) sitting on that subway car asking the question he did…you know it.
LOL- Downspring, my dear, if you can please tell me what ever that ” separate but equal” bit from Clark is about in anything resembling English, I’d be much obliged, ma’am. The marmalade skies have turned into grape jam, so the landscape below me as fly through must be a fork-split English muffin. And how can I be having a flashback if I never indulged to begin with? Hey, is that a Starbucks down there? And is that Janie working the drive-through?
I know, I know…I have to be more disciplined and predictable…but can I pull over and get a Dark Vente Latte first? ( Just to go with the muffin, of course.)
Glad you could make it back…speaking of food, have you ever considered why it is that clarks and scotts seem to hit is off so well?
Have had conversations with Progenitor roger and Downspring Glenn on this subject and the view emerging is that this sympatico is as much a feedback loop from (the scottian) predator-instincts as anything else…
That’s weird… who is Rick? That was my exact reply/comment. But that’s ok. Hi Rick whoever you are.
Hey…I did not notice that…about it being your comment…there seems to be some ‘internet thing’ where comments come in that are just copies of other comments. Sorry, did not catch your (previous) Comment as the source.
Got rid of the fake Comment.
(I thought it was people who did not know how to submit Comments, but no I guess it is just some aspect of the web that I didnt know about.)
As long as you are reading this…I have a draft of the next Post ready, am talking about new features for when we got the new look…any thoughts? Let me know and I iwll include it in the Post (or go there and include something yourself).