(roger…roger…roger…)

When I got up this morning, my first thought was, as always, what am I going to write about for the day’s Post?  And it seemed that the answer was, “hey since writing yesterday’s (“…the best to you each morning”) let’s talk about the benefit of ‘lightning up”.  This would have recounted the struggle of recent days to come up with anything but how yesterday, after writing and publishing the Post, I went back in and added some fun, recollectational stuff. (The thing about eating Grape Nuts in a college dorm.) And it did seem like the way I was going to go today.  But then I went in search of a subtitle….and that took me to Lyle (actually John Prine) and then the photos (above and on the home page) and that took me to rogers.  So, I guess I do not have an easy to write morning….

Screw it, let’s stay a little human today.  Hey, when you look back at your very early life, what do you recall being the first exhibition of being the type you are (clark, scott or roger)? I distinctly recall being 4 or 5 and being ‘tickled into submission’, you know the way that kids do that?  Get an initial reaction and then follow through until you are sitting on top of your laughing so hard you victim and despite being begged to stop you continue the ticklation. I recall that after one of these “attacks” I decided that I would not be ticklish anymore.  That simple.  And I proceeded to do…something….not quite clear on the process, other than I seem to recall that it did not happen overnight, but eventually (and to this day) I was no longer ticklish. (Here is the clarklike part, I knew that what I was doing was something that “nobody can do that”.  And in the process of becoming ‘non-ticklish’, others would comment along the same lines,  “you can’t do that, no one can make themselves not be ticklish”.) Guess that is my first memory that I can see shows me as a clark.  I suspect that this suggestion will have validity only to clarks, but I could be wrong.  In fact, I suspect that I am wrong because as I have stated before, you Readers are not normal.  By definition, you have an ability to see yourselves from a different perspective than does the general population.  And this will be part of the challenge in bringing the Wakefield Doctrine to the world.  Most people cannot, deliberately step back and see themselves.  They think that the world they see and hear and react to is the same for everyone.
But… “you and I have been through that, and this not our fate” (to channel Bob a little).

Am resisting writing about rogers, as the two photos that showed up today (“accidentally iconic images, reporting for duty today, sir!) are clearly of rogers…btw, add actress Kathy Bates to your list of rogerian women.  So I will go for the short Post and get right to the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day.  And the lesson is not really a lesson, it is an observation.  About the perspective of age. I have long spoken about how we all “lock into’ a certain age and stay there despite the steady advance of time. It is different for each of us and effectively it is the age of the person you expect to see when you walk down the street and see your reflection in a storefront window. (I have come across a blog, where the writer has come up with a description of this phenomenon way totally better than I have. He say, “What would you say your age is, if you forgot how old you were?” Damn. Says it perfectly).
Anyway, we all do that. Lock into a certain age, no matter how old we get. There is a long, metaphysical explanation (“hey Luuucyy, you got some splainnn“) that has to do with the idea that we all have a description inside ourselves of what the world should be, how life is supposed to turn out. It is not entirely conscious, and it is not entirely positive. But it is the sum of what we have been taught that life is all about. As in,  “clark, when you grow up you will….” When we reach a point when all that follows is in our lives, we can then stop getting older, the wait is over. That is the age you lock in at.

So the Wakefield Doctrine lesson of the day comes from DownSpring#1 who asks in a Comment on the previous Post, (if I may paraphrase)…” it is a given that rogers live in a self-centered universe. Self-centered in the pure sense of the word, all things come back to the roger…all things (of value) issue from the roger.” (DS#1 goes on to ask)…”does the roger even know that this is an artificial arrangement or is it beyond comprehension (that the universe does not revolve around them?)”

I will offer my input and then open the floor to Comments. From phyllis (a roger) comes the explanation that,  “rogers exist in a box that they have created and then manage to forget that they are the creator…it is a box so that it must by definition be the whole universe, but it is limited for the same reason. For the sake of ‘completeness’.”

“Eee doggies! Uncle Jed! That done loaded down the truck what making it scrape right on the ground!”

(Oh Meester Hanitor!!! we shore would be appreciatin some fine music, rat about now, dontcha know?)

(warning bootleg vid, have to listen to the scotts in the audience scream along…)

Hey…lets go with another Emmylou…

OK…Contest time….we know what John is (roger) and Lyle is (clark) so what the heck is Emmylou?  (Hint: the Progenitor roger used to totally love her…)