…(a) Dude!!! (b) oh man! no frickin way (c) Jay, call me what you want, but you gots to see a doctor!..
(Now that we have had our little Sunday morning humor.) We are entering the week of the 26th of June, which means the week of the Firstaversary of the Wakefield Doctrine…yay
(Which might as well be the topic of today’s Wakefield Doctrine, Lesson of the Day.)
When it comes to celebrations in general and anniversary(s) in particular… clarks do not enjoy them, scotts do and rogers make them a part of their life. In terms of adding to our understanding and use of (the Doctrine), what does knowing this do for us? Two things: if you are curious about yourself, you can consider the reasons and ramifications of (your types) response to these events…which pretty much makes you a clark; if you are curious about how the other two relate to celebrations then, that makes you a clark (or possibly a momentarily bored scott). Let’s look at the easy one first.
rogers love anniversaries, cause they are the benchmarks of tradition, the markings of history, all the things that make up the world (as a roger perceives it);
scotts like anniversaries and will glady accept an invitation for a simple enough reason, contained in one word: buffet
clarks do not like celebrations and/or anniversaries in general because they are affairs that by their very definition celebrate fellowship/shared experience/belonging
(…are we almost through here?…I have an Invitation to the Sherwin Williams Wall Paint Exposition…”Drying through the Ages“…have to pace myself here…)
Lol. Yeah sometimes it do get a bit tedious…
…speaking of tedious…actually speaking of nothing to do with this Post, I have made ‘pop music’ a project. That is to say, I (recently) made a conscious decision to acquire a taste for pop music. Now this is such a clarklike thing to do that no further explanation should be required. But I will anyway, cause we gots way too much white space still left.
The thing of it is, both scotts and rogers live in real worlds, to wit:
scotts one of appetites and aggression and rogers, damn! rogers live in a perfect world, each and everyone one of them. ( …ok the paint drying exhibit will wait…how can rogers all live in perfect worlds?…huh?… ) Well, I’ll tell you. Rogers perceive the world in terms of what is quantifiable, accountable, provable. That is why they make such good engineers, accountants and doctors and priests. ( …hold on! I get the engineers and accountants, I will even give you the doctors…but priests? tell me how the representative of a religion is the same as an engineer… go ahead…I’m waiting… )
Here it goes…rogers believe in the quantifiable, the measurable. They believe in tradition and history and the preservation of culture and… religion. While not scientifically provable as say engineering, (religion) is totally quantifiable. For example…the Ten Commandments (not Six for the children and Fourteen for adults in business) Ten. That is the quantifiable way to live a life. And since “organised” religion is a part of all civil society, rogers are the ones who will be found in the position of Keeper of Rules, Dispenser of Wisdom. ( …perfect world….rogers….the point?… ) Oh, yeah.
The point here is, the only way a person can maintain the fiction of a quantifiable world is to limit the world to quantifiable things and then forget that they set the limits!
Thats how rogers can live in a perfect world. ( …oh-kay….and this has to do with Pop Music…how?… )
rogers live in a quantifiable world, where all is understandable, all is predetermined. clarks, on the other hand, live in a world that is unquantifiable.
clarks being the creative one of the three, allow for any and all possibilities, choosing to believe in anything and subsequently believing in nothing.
clarks can wake up one day and say, “Pop Music really kind of sucks. A lot of people seem to like it though, I guess I better listen to it and acquire a taste for it”.
(scott: “wtf! that don’t make no sense at all, you don’t like then it is not likable! wtf!!). ( roger : “well I can tell you why you should like the likable things and as for the unlikeable things, well there just is no need for them…lets talk about me…)
The project has been successful. I can listen to Pop Music with a sense of appreciation (“sense of appreciation” what a clark!! ( roger and scott))
Well, thank you Miss Sullivan for your help in finding the topic of the day.
And to close, Mr. B! Do you have some music that might illustrate the point here today? (oh, sorry about the harsh reference to you and your by-now-totally-aging scottian-wife-who-must-be-so-not-liking losing her youthful powers).
(Note: I like this song cause I am jealous of someone who is capable of coming up with such a catchy hook as that 1234 lyric. Damn, why did that take so long to come into existence? It was there all along!)
And to, cleanse the palette…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cosvsXtCATg
About clarkscottroger
Sorry. I try not offend. Both musics suck today. This not a thing funny to say. Just fact. Suck. Hope not offend.
(…sorry…I must have forgotten that the whole point of writing a Post is to provide music videos…) Stop wait listen. Not a lot of time, but you have the right of semi privacy.
Imagine we are driving through Wakefield and the topic goes to anniversaries…tell me is: “I don’t like the song on the radio” your best contribution to the discussion? Now, before you answer:
How many times, when you are at a client’s doing a training (not cops or firefighters) but the PTA or a higher end client…how many times do you use the word “Fuck’ in your training, how many times do you tell an executive board of a corporation (if you ever work at that level) how, “you want to thank your father for cumming”?
If you do not think that this blog deserves that level of effort, then you need to find another venue…like I said, Facebook always has room for that kind of crap.
I never say fuck in training. Never thank father for coming. But—would be funny if I did. Very funny. I like funny. Clark used to like funny. Now…not so much..Clark like serious and ……IMPORTANT now. I like that too–but still like funny.
…will not engage in a debate…(see todays’ Post the part about this not being a ‘message board’), but your Comment appears to be a sincere question/statement and therefore deserves a sincere (if not ponderous) response.
I would ask…if it would be so funny (and you have stated in some deleted Comments how you just want to have fun with the Readers), why don’t you do that in your training? Come on, can’t they take a joke, are they so stuck up that a little humor would upset them? Or are you, as the Trainer/Professional taking yourself too seriously or are afraid that they won’t get the point of some clever prodding (huh, huh he said “prodding”).
All we require here at the Doctrine is that those who would write Comments do so with the intent to add to the conversation, increase the knowledge of the Doctrine. In other words, show our Readers the same respect that you seem to feel you need to show your clients.
On the other hand, if you are feeling that you cannot rise to the level of the conversation; after all every day there is a new Post that tries to make a new statement about/in reference to/concerning the Wakefield Doctrine, (then) you can always sit it out and watch from the bench.
Just sayin’