Friday’s Child is loving and giving | the Wakefield Doctrine Friday’s Child is loving and giving | the Wakefield Doctrine

Friday’s Child is loving and giving

…”Papa-ooma-mow-mow

…yesterday we left off talking about rogers…so let’s continue our little discussion…

“I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, or my praise to idols.” Yahweh demanded the role of the one true God in the hearts and minds of Israel, “Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one: and you shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.(courtesy of our friends at Wikipedia).

DISCLAIMER!.  I MEAN IT…READ THIS BEFORE YOU GET ALL (whatever state of heightened emotion is characteristic of your type) …no, despite the rather vocal opinions of many scotts and a fair number of rogers, we (and by we I mean those of us here at the Wakefield Doctrine) we do not hate/disdain/scorn/dislike/disrespect/disturb/deconstrue/or in any manner hold the opinion that rogers are the worst of the worst of the three. To the contrary the Doctrine, it’s own damn self says of these people:

  • rogers are the friendly ones
  • rogers are the glue to whatever social fabric you might care to consider, civic, religious, scientific
  • rogers require rules and traditions, they are in fact the only ‘reason’ that history of human civilization has any continuity whatsoever
  • rogers are behind the creation of and perpetuation of virtually all human institutions, religious, civic, political whatever
  • rogers do not create, they maintain, they assemble, they are the machine operators
  • rogers are the engineers, accountants and physicians
  • rogers are the judges, the firefighters and high school teachers (except for gym teachers) (excerpt from the roger page Wakefield Doctrine)
  • Having said that…we simply have to account for the influence, the tone, the tenor that rogerian institutions have imparted upon human existence.  We have said elsewhere that were it not for rogers, life would consist of a fairly small number of scotts roaming the savannah hunting prey, which for the most part would consist of endless numbers of roger-like lifeforms that nearly fill the eco-system (picture herds of buffalo with wings, flying pigeon-like from spot to spot, taking off with a roar of giant wings…) and a very, very small number of clarks (lemur looking people with large eyes and ten opposable thumbs)…Not a pretty picture, is it?

    Anyway…the fact is that rogers create institutions and constitutions, they are the reason we have civilization…and continuity…and (organised) religion…and oppression and cultural intolerance.  So, here’s a shocker, the rogerian nature produces good and evil.

    (Now I simply have to say this…if your reaction by this point in today’s Post is anything but, “of course I knew that, the Doctrine is built on the notion that all of us are born with the potential to experience the world in one of three ways, (and) we become predominately one but always retaining the qualities of the other two…”, you need to stop reading and go find another blog. (With 100 million of these fuckers out there, there will surely be something that appeals to you…)

    OK, OK where the hell was I going with this thing?  Oh yeah, rogers…look on that picture…what’s not to like?  The picture that anchors this Post (at the top of this page), even allowing for the cultural bias of Jesus Christ as Kenny Loggins, the picture shows the good side of rogers… (I shouldn’t have to repeat this, but you all know that the Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral, don’t you…and while the image I am using is male, I could have just as easily put in a photo of Aunt Bea or Kathy Bates or Mother Theresa…in fact I think there will be a Post coming up to reiterate this very point.  But for now  let’s quit while I am (hopefully) still ahead. (btw ‘knowing when to quit’ is not  a primary characteristic of clarks.)

    So in the course of your day today, try and spot the rogers in your life. (hey! Roger! if a person is a roger, can they see other rogers, or do they just seem like regular people to them?), of course rogers will spot scotts: nervous sideways glances towards the bushes until they lock eyes and then a semi-hypnotized state, I assume.  If you are not a roger, look at your friends and family and co-workers today.  rogers will, of course, be the social people, easy to talk to, friendly and comfortable in small groups, very familiar with the methods and rules in the workplace, the roger at work will probably know everyone’s birthday, spouses names, who is dating who and who is breaking up or soon to break up with who… 

    BREAKTIME!!!!  two videos….same song title different songs…..games people play  and then we have  games people play  your choice….

    I think we have covered a fair amount of ground today.  I invite Comments but I will say this: let’s get something new in terms of insights.  We all know…. wait a minute…do I hear someone suggest….a….CONTEST!!!!

    For a hat (for your damn head) sucessfully match the photo to the type:  clark: (a) (b) (c); scott: (a) (b) (c); roger: (a) (b) (c)

    (a)                               

     (b)                                     

     (c)

    Send in your entries as Comments, first 5 who correctly match the form to the photo win a hat (for your damn head).

     

    Share

    clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
    Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one

    Comments

    1. Denise aka Downspring#1 says:

      How coincidental that today’s Post addresses the elemental (in this case, rogers) as I was going back to basics myself the other day. (all for the purpose of getting myself straight with the universe man)( wide grin).

      clarks are of the future, scotts of the present and rogers of the past (see, makes sense them being the historians.) Covers the time line nicely.

      If I may suggest another method by which to determine if an individual is a roger or not – listen for the phrase “if I’d only ______”. All rogers will refer to something in their past (some repeatedly) lamenting if they had only done this way back when, then they could be (fill in the blank) today or famous or living in a bigger house…

      (For clarks listen for the “what if _______”?, scotts will simply ask “why not_______”?)

    2. Glenn Miller says:

      a–roger
      b–clark
      c–scott
      The Kenny Loggins picture above DOES look…nice. Warm. Friendly. Comforting. But, remember, the God these people are such fans of will reportedly send you to hell—forever, if you piss him off. There you will suffer, for eternity, such suffering that its like is not to be found on Earth. He has the power to end the suffering–but he won’t. It is HIS will that this suffering befall you. After all, you pissed him off. Why does he do this? These chuckleheads actually believe it is because, wait for it…HE LOVES YOU. Sounds like a vindictive, immature, mean-spirited prick to me. They call him GOD. And he looks like Kenny Loggins. This blatant contradiction…this obvious incongruity that even a 5 yr old could see—is not visible to these people. They get pissed off when you bring it up. He loves you—AND–he will condemn you to eternal suffering if you cross him. (Get it? Cross??) Well anyone with a lick of sense can see that ONE of these things is not true. Either he does not condemn you to eternal suffering–or, if he does, he does not love you. Someone will get pissed off about me saying this. When, in fact, the evidence compels one to reach this conclusion. But religious people hate evidence. Facts just fuck their whole system all up. See all those kids gathering around Kenny Loggins? He will condemn the majority of them to eternal suffering. What an asshole!

    3. RCoyne Roger says:

      The wiki quote is actually Isaiah 42:8; seems that the main thing at the time was to get tribes off the notion of polytheism, and onto the notion of monotheism. People then were just as likely to declare allegiance to whatever tribe’s god just won the last war, or a really shiny golden calf, or the local Clark ( if he could just play those cards just right).
      The painting, like many similar works, illustrates Mark 10:13 or Luke 18:16. Jesus had a pretty short list of things that really ticked Him off, and messing around with children’s karma was way up on that list. There are apparently several busloads of Roman Catholic priests who will be paying that piper down the road a piece. I think that kids are actually born with a kind of force- field of karmic grace around them, and it takes several years for the world to break that down and eventually produce the twisted, dysfunctional adults that many of us seem to become. Jesus was just saying” these are fine just like this, this is how they’re (we’re)supposed to be, so don’t make me come over there”.
      And as to condemning people to eternal suffering? Jesus will forgive anyone, anytime. All they have to do is really, really mean it. And we are given free will; so you can play that however you like, for as long as you like…until your time is up. Then… if you have amassed a bit of a karmic debt ( we don’t want to say ” sin”, that is so old school) then it simply becomes your time to pay up. Just like throwing a rock in a pond. You threw the rock, disturbed the balance, and are responsible for the ripples. The pond will regain its composure, everything will be fine. You will be fine. But the debt will be, at the very least, equal to the disturbance.
      Interesting that Eastern philosophies tend to value the balance and calm for its own sake, and we Westerners can’t seem to find big enough rocks to keep throwing into the pond. We just can’t resist finding ways to make stuff happen…