no…this can’t be the way real blog writers do what they do! Surely there is a better way to get started than to surf the net for photos and song lyrics and hope that something grabs you. Take today’s session, please*. I started with some line for a subtitle that I have already forgotten, then went to the Beatles for a line from ‘Daytripper’. OK ‘acceptable’ subtitle in place (…takin the easy way out…) on to find a photo…nothin. Typing words into image search…headed towards “Plain and simple”, bunch of fashion photos…tempting, but the Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral, so have to surpass on most of those, on to “dry as toast”…still nothing finally one photo has picture of bologna sandwich…boiinnggg, (as the old cartoons used to represent), Oscar Meyer commercial jingle and now I have a subtitle that makes me respond. (clarks + respond = ) (very funny). So the most difficult part is over with, first paragraph-lette is done and now I just have to keep typing, get a Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day and a video and I can call it a day.
Trouble is, in the course of writing the above, I stumbled across Henny Youngman (“King of the One Liners) and Oscar Wilde (“King of the apocryphal Last Words) In Oscar’s case last words, depending on source, “I’ve always hated that wallpaper. One of us has to go”; and *Henny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVGVJGX–o0Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day: the point of all this effort, with the blogs and the posts and the film clips already, is to reduce the Doctrine to a simple to follow plan.
Plan? We don’t need no steenkin Plan!! The derisive laughter of the scotts and the howls of personal affront-hood of the rogers, I can hear in the distance, I think they’re callin my name. Neither a scott or a roger would be inclined to see any point to change/improvement/otherwise altering what they are.
“So”, you might be asking yourself at this point, “why bring it up”?
The answer is quite simple, if you are here a third time, you are not the average clark or scott or roger. (Better make that the average scott or roger, god knows clarks tend not to average, even when they are totally run of the mill).
If you are a scott reading this, I would ask the question: “Hey predator girl/boy, whatcha doing readin? (We can read) glenn’s Comments about how so focused on the real and the concrete and none of this mystico/psycho/mumbo jumbo shit, real life forms ain’t got time for intro..speck…shun, fuck that! scotts are all action orientated and all.
And rogers, sitting back in your chair, yeah you binyon. I know you can write circles around this blog and one of these ddays you will show us all how it really should be done, what with your casual, confident, “hey-I-have-something-interesting-that-you-want-to-hear”, you know pull the herd into a circle around the water cooler, loading dock, break room, “just you and me here in the hall for a minute”.
Both of you, “hey I’m much too busy to waste time contributing to this thing and besides you won’t let me scream at the Readers, like a 5 year old who is bored and getting angry that everyone around them seem to have something interesting to do”, I’m talking to you. You know, scotts and rogers.
The Lesson of the Day is this: you are mutated. You are not just a clark or a simple scott or merely a roger. Not if you are reading this still. You have the benefit of an overly-developed clarklike nature.
lol Come back scott!! Don’t hit the off button rogers!! lol I will make that statement acceptable, don’t you worry ’bout nothin.
The fact is, none of the real clarks or scotts or rogers would be bothering with this Wakefield Doctrine thing. That simple. But I am doing all of this because apparently there are enough clarks, scotts and rogers with the flexibility of mind, confident curiosity, the need to grow and improve to keep me doing this thing. The Readership levels are laughable by blog standards, but screw it. There are between 35 and 45 people who show up here on a regular basis and it is not only ’cause I gots some good vids up. Speaking of which, where the hell is that janitor?
I really am not feeling up to dealing with a metaphorical, un-resolved life crisis figure, so I will end this on the sophisticated note that we have all come to expect from this thing of ours.
About clarkscottroger
Mutated. Meaning, I take it, that I have become more clarklike. I think I have always been able to summon my inner clark. In fact sometimes he summons me. Not always comfortable or welcome. Clarkhood is scary, disorienting—albeit at times interesting. I recall at age 18 or 19 being rather clarklike just about all the time. Worst period of my life to date. A nightmare. Still shudder to recall it. I’m not sure its such a good thing for a scott to embrace clarkness. I know its there. I just don’t like it. Too….vulnerable. Too uncertain about anything. If I have mutated, I think its not that I have become able to be more clarklike. It is that I understand what clarkism is. I also understand rogerness. I have a roger in me too—the little whiny asshole. I have experienced times when that little sissy comes to the fore. Takes years to get my self respect back after such an episode. No, the Doctrine for me is not a way to expand and embrace all three within me. I think that’s dangerous and unneccesary. I don’t NEED to more clarklike. I sure don’t need to be more rogerian. But this is a point you keep coming back to. It seems important to you to become more scottian–and even on occasion, more rogerian. Foolhardy methinks. But, very clarklike to want that. Clarks probably have trouble seeing themselves as whole–just the way they are. Hence, the belief that one needs to be more. I think the doctrine allows me to appreciate my scottian nature. It allows me to be wary of rogers, but also begrudgingly appreciate their way of making a ripple in tha pond. It allows me to understand clarks and respect their seemingly unconnected, random ramblings.. But I feel no sense of needing to or wanting to BE either one. I am aware that I already AM. And at times I have allowed those other manifestations of me to come forward. But that has never seemd like a strength to me. Quite the opposite, really. I am the best ME I can be when I am fully scottian. Unambiguously, fully, and happily. With all the supposed warts. Love my fucking warts. Don’t care if others love my warts. It is enough that I do. The doctrine allows me to adapt my behavior when dealing with a roger or a clark. The doctrine allows me to revel in being a scott. Life is more fun that way. I think fun is a highly scottian value. ANYTHING is OK as long as it is fun. Gets me in trouble sometimes, but I DO have fun. Clarks have more somber, serious mission in the world. Rogers generally like fun as an abstract concept–but tend to disapprove of it in actual real-life practice. These differences make relationships interesting–and at times aggravating. Clarks can be rather obdurate, stubborn and over-principled. Rogers can be extermely controlling and judgmental. Scotts can be crude and loud–just for fun. We enjoy each other–and piss each other off. But without the doctrine, we have no chance to at least understand each other–and ourselves. So, to sum up, fuck you clark for being such a rigid and strict creator. Fuck you rogers for being so passive-aggressively condemning and unpleasable. But, I still enjoy hanging with you assholes. And I suppose, fuck you scotts for being just a little insensitive and noisy. Love me some scotts, though.
…so let me get this straight…
as a scott you recognise that you have the elements/potentail of being either of the other two…you are sayin that you have them as a part of what you are but you have interest only in that ‘view of the world’ that is dominant, i.e. your scottian aspect.
…sort sounds like…”hey my legs are strong, why would I want to exercise my arms”?
…hold that thought…to be continued later this pm…
A thought provoking comment Glenn – “Clarks probably have trouble seeing themselves as whole–just the way they are. Hence, the belief that one needs to be more.”
I would simply say that clarks do not “need” to be more, they aspire to a higher level. Always. Call it self-improvement, self-enlightenment. It is about evolution…
I will think more on this (as is typical of a clark) and get back to this “conversation” soon.
(carry on)
…back…you are both nearly right…DS#1 closer to the truth in a ‘gloss the real truth over’, sort of way….(i.e. we need to (seek self-improvement) the same way that scotts need to shout, to hunt, to have fun (…”sometimes”) it is in our nature.
But the point I am trying to make (both with today’s Post as with this Comment) is that we possess the qualities of all three types. (Lets make that totally unambiguous…everyone is born the with qualities/attributes/potentials of all three types, that at some point early in life we become predominately one (of the three) over the other two. But we retain the ‘unrealised potential’.
That is why we can have this ‘conversation’, (that and your screwed-up mutant nature) because you can imagine that there are other types of people, either clarks, or scotts or rogers.
Today’s Post simply points out the the Readers of the Wakefield Doctrine are not ‘pure’ clarks or scotts or rogers. (blah, blah and yes, Blah).
How can you sit there and say, “I am what I am, I like what (I think) I am and I am perfect as I am”?
Seriously, if you had a child in grade school and they came to you and said, “Dad, me and my friends have a lot of fun…I will not be going to school anymore”. What would you say to them?
I VALUE only that part of me that is dominant. I know the others are there. Can’t help it. Don’t like them. Its like saying “my legs are strong–I guess I’ll focus on running. You arm people can focus on waving and hand-shaking”. I LIKE running. Waving and hand-shaking bore me. I don’t see my inner roger and clark as “potential”. I see them as unavoidable character quirks. I’m stuck with them. I try to overcome them by being even more scottian. If I seek improvement, I seek it by emphasizing MORE the scottian part of me–and suppressing more the roger and clark. Am I being a “Type chauvinist”? Probably. My question to you is, if you seek improvement, why do you do it by trying to be something you’re really not. Be MORE what you are. What you are has worked for a long time. If my kid said he was having fun and wanted therefore to quit school, I’d honest-to-God say, “Good for you, ya little hump. Have fun.” Go back to school if and when that works for you. I guess I’m wondering why clarks even feel a need to be more of anything. Doncha feel OK being who you are? The answer might be, No. That in itself is a clarklike trait–not shared by scotts–and probably not shared by rogers either. Can’t presume to speak for the rogers. They wouldn’t want me to. They’d be offended and, in a helpful caring way, condemn me for it. So I won’t do it. Fucking Rogers! No offense. But, really, why would a roger want to be scottian. They fear and disapprove of scotts. Why would a roger want to be a clark. They disdain and look down upon clarks. It seems that only clarks want to be the other two. Maybe I’m wrong. But I don’t think so. Now I got a fucking headache from all this thinking. Looking forward to playing basketball tonight. Me and my scotts–with a few rogers in their for snacking on. I AM feeling a bit hungry.
Mispelled there as their. Horrible. I laugh at idiots who do that and now I’ve gone and done it. A few rogers thrown in THERE for snacking on. The sheer logical power of my thoughts throws my words into disarray and misspellings result. Can’t be helped. Price I gotta pay for all this brain power. Not complaining. My cross to bear.
I just know I’ll regret this. But this is a good bunch of comments, and I can’t resist. I’ll get my whiny-assed face chopped off and handed back on a platter, but it’ll grow back in a few days, so…
It was a few months back that DS1 made the point of using the Doctrine as a personal philosophy aimed at internal balance. If you ask me, that’s the only positive practical application for this. If you try to go any other way, you end up with a completely immobile, static system that will do nothing more than reinforce whatever hatreds and prejudices you already had on your plate when you came in the door. That is very probably the only real difference in the world between good guys and bad guys, in the end. The good guys struggle with it, and the bad guys just say ‘screw it’ and kill everything.
Since everything I just said sounds like it was lifted from a PBS special, just give me a minute to get my Earth shoes back on, blow out the candles, and maybe get a head start on you guys…
perhaps that was an unconscious thang, (freudian mis-type) the word “their” being a personal pronoun and the context being scotts…’but thats not important now ‘(L. Nielsen Airplane)
Might as well save my response for a Post, which I will do for tomorrow. (Besides I have to look up the term used in logic describing the situation wherein a person attempting to refute an argument ends up actually proving it)…(nothing bad, don’t worry)
But what you say above is true, for a scott. But, unfortunately for you, you are mutated enough (that word again!!) to be drawn into a discussion about the Wakefield Doctrine which in turn knew that you would say what you said, in the words that you use and if called upon would be able to predict what a roger would say, if we had one in this little discussion.
(And yes, I am just saying this because I am a clark, but I knew that you would say that….etc blah etc…)
…you were apparently writing as I hit submit Comment…I think I would have been close to what was actually spoken from the rogerian perspective…and will still try to take this little discussion into tomorrow’s Post.
(Warning: will be lifting representative sections from the above to get the party started. But since it requires the ability to see from another’s POV, I’ll be alright. I am a clark, you know).
So, if you happen to get back here tonight (roger) or Ms. AKH if you stop by, the question is this:
what the hell is the point of all this Doctrine crap (please frame your questions 2 ways, personal answer and the answer that you people, as a group would stand behind.)