the things we’ll do!! | the Wakefield Doctrine the things we’ll do!! | the Wakefield Doctrine

the things we’ll do!!

Thought I would start on an enthusiastic note. While it might not read as well as it sounds…the  subtitle is meant to convey the level of excitment usually reserved for children anticipating an adventure that is still slightly off in the future… a Trip to a major theme park or a week at the beach for the first time.  There is a unalloyed sense of confidence in the future (and being a child maybe that is the only time that is possible), anyway that is what today’s Post is about…the things that we* will do this year on these Pages and by extension in the real world.**

The strength of the Wakefield Doctrine lies in the fact that it accounts for the reality as it is experienced by all people.  (Put a little less grandiostic) the Doctrine proposes that everyone of us experiences the world with one of three basic viewpoints.  Unlike all the other ‘theories of personality’, the Doctrine says: understand the viewpoint*** (of an individual) is to understand their personality, not the other way around.  (Better stop here and talk about ‘viewpoint of reality’.  Here at the WD we use the term ‘viewpoint of reality’ to describe how an individual perceives their relationship with the world.  Not only what they think they are, but what they think the nature of the world is, to a clark the world is a hostile world and they are the outsider; to a scott the world is one of predator and prey and to a roger the world is a world of emotional connection, a social and therefore non-hostile world).  So where is the excited anticipation going to come from?

From the fact that if we understand that a scott is perceiving the world as one in which the most basic relationship is one of predator or prey then we know how they will act in any situation.  If we know how they will act in any situation then we can choose how we act so as to influence the outcome (of our interaction)…

Did I mention that we are excited about the coming year?  Did I fail to mention that the interesting people (here at the Doctrine) are, kind of, off on summer vacation?
I didn’t?  Sure I really and distinctly recall reading a Postcard (in a Post) (ha) (ha)…not that funny? Ohkay….well Janie is off to Europe this Summer on a Wunderchilde Excursion of the Crowned Head of Europe…(her parents are rather well-to-do)  But  Jimmy is still here, summer school you know…something about a Substitute Teacher…the name escapes me…did a lecture at Mill Fill they hit it off right from the first meeting…well at least his grades suffered…(LTS) and Britney is on one of those outreach camps/enviro-eco-save-the-backward-child at the local university…no, she is in fact quite intelligent…our fault entirely not rising above cultural biases.

And the other ‘voices’ found here?  Well… (the) roger has his own blog now…camptown rag…no…capetown breakdown…wait secessionist rag!  yeah that’s it! some totally rogerian thing…blog with a a thing where you contribute to writing a novel…set number of words in joint effort…a compensatory project to use a rogerian expression.  So his time is being spent over there…yeah he does have a certain gift at comfortable friendly words…after words…followed by…anyway not seeing too much of him here at the Doctrine, at least until he gets it out of his system…what?  Diana Ross?…lol not such a good analogy, lol… but his link is here:  the roger

DownSpring glenn?  yeah, you’re right, he is coming along…much less of the “look at me”!!  “I can shock you”!!  showing evidence of producing some actually interesting observation and Comment…yeah we have high hopes that this Summer  he will step up… I think that (his contributions to the Doctrine) is where the concept of director/producer/editor came from…some people can only send out…limited in the ability to reflect back from the audience,  to modify their message accordingly…but I really believe that he will show us a side that is worth the effort to bring out…yeah once you get past the scottian HEY! HEY! HEY! that is lol…good idea I should do a Post on “what’s up with those scotts”  (as seen in DownSpring glenns “style”)…Hey why wait?  Here it is in a nutshell: scotts live in a reality best defined as predator/prey, their (social) organisation is that of the pack, dogs and wolfs serve as the best example of the scottian society.  They must always test their environment to determine who is a threat (dominant) and who is not (submissive).  The thing we learned years ago about scotts is that this “ranking” among pack members is the most important thing to a scott.  They must know, at all times, where they stand relative to others in their situation.  The interesting thing, from a clark’s point of view, is that to be submissive to a dominant member of the pack has no negative connotation (for a scott).  This is not how a clark or a even a roger would react, we would think, “submissive = less than, therefore undesirable”.  Not so for scotts, it simply means, “this one dominant, this one submissive”.  The important thing is to know where you stand in the pack.
And that brings us to the obnoxious behavior…it is simply a way to challenge the other members of the pack to see who is dominant and who is submissive…very simple, almost elegant…but has no place in these pages…other than to serve as a vehicle to understanding the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers.

DownSpring#1?  now there will be an opportunity to see if this Doctrine has any…efficacy, any use any real…”hey I got to alter what type I am…right now…and while we are at it…how do I interact with these scotts and rogers so that I come out of it where I really want to be”?…you know clark stuff…
Ms AKH she be in da house!, she will never let us down…taking a little rest but when you look back at the year…she had the stuff…a pleasing/exciting combination of wildwoman scottian enthusiasms tempered (yeah, right! tempered…ya want to try for ‘barely restrained’ lol) with a thoughtful effort to reach out to the Readers, the spirit of trying out the unknown, the scottian equivalent of “hey fresh kill, lets just freeze some of that for next winter“, sure…unlike certain other scottian Downsprings
Not to forget Joanne…who will surely bail us out this Summer with a questionaire that will have you muttering to yourself, “Oh man! they’re right! I am a clark and my spouse! jeez how could they have known?…where are those cameras, nobody knows that when they do that thing, I almost always came back with…no way they could know…I better buy a hat!”

So, maybe it will not be such a boring Summer.  Will try to keep from total pendantriosity…or not…let’s get out for today though…

 

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. Glenn Miller says:

    Seals and Croft. Dan Seals went on to moderate success as a country singer. Croft went into some weird-ass coptic religion thingie and was never heard from again. At concerts he would sometimes make anti-abortion speeches. Talk about being too serious to be entertaining. Audiences lost interest and that was end of Seals and Croft. Same thing happened to Lenny Bruce. All his concerts at the end were him railing about how he was being denied his first amendment rights. Audiences wanted to hear him talk about “tits and asses”. They were not interested in all that serious shit. He went all rogerian on them. Left his (better) scottian self behind–and failed. Lessons there? Not for me to say–although I think I just said it. My lesson? Be who you are. Embrace it. Love it. Revel in it. Whatever you love about yourself, is…yourself. Whoever loves you, loves YOU. Not some new, “improved”, more sophisticated, added onto, you. Sub-lesson?–let others revel in who they are. Appreciate, enjoy, and marvel at how they move through the world. Different from how you do, but valid and functional nonetheless. To me, THAT is the utility of The Wakefield Doctrine. So, in conclusion, I’d like to thank you for coming—or however you reacted.

  2. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    hold on there sport…you may not be aware of it but you are “being hoist on your own petard”…dude
    By your own “standards” the Croft guy was just doin’ what he wanted to do…screw others and what they think…it wuz what he was liken…he embraced his ’embrace the weird religion self’ and was not self-conscious about it…didn’t care what others thought…perfect scottian outcome…
    or did I miss something in the “I should do what feels good to me and if anyone has a problem with it, that makes it more right” (that I should do that)…
    or what

  3. Glenn Miller says:

    I’m sorry, Clark. That sentence is too fucking long. I tried to swallow it whole and I gagged it back up again–all covered with spit and stuff. Now I don’t want to eat it. Plus parentheses give me heartburn anyway. You gotta be careful at your age ripping out long-ass sentences like that. You’ll hurt yourself. However, I do detect an obscure point in all that freight-train-long verbiage. Not a bad point, but your point misses the fucking point. Craft had success as a singer. He must have loved it. It was who he was. Then he got all wrapped up in how important his thoughts were–and bingo! His thoughts were no longer important. Same with Lenny Bruce. He must have loved being funny at one time. He was brilliant at it. Then he got to thinking of himself as IMPORTANT–and suddenly, he no longer was. Stubbornly refusing to live in the real world is decidedly UN-scottian. Both of these guys lost rank in the pack. They abandoned their true nature–and became—essentially—fucking nothing. A scott would not dream of doing that. You play the room you’re in. You stay vitally tuned into the effect you’re having on others. Both of these guys got all wrapped up in their own alternative world. One died. The other lives in obscurity. Do we celebrate their fidelity to their own muses? Or do we lament their obvious destruction–or at least decreasement? (is that a word?) Decreasement??? Who let the roger out? This is what happens when you engage in stream-of-consciousness writing. You stumble on a word that might not be a word. I’m sorry folks. I didn’t mean for this to happen. What are we gonna do with decreasement? See how easy it is to get all wrapped up in your own thoughts? It causes decreasement. Fuck. You guys go on ahead without me. I’ve got to kill and field dress this word. It’d be better if you didn’t see this. It’s not pretty. I’ll probably bury it right here. The fewer people who see this, the better. So, just move along…nothing to see here. Lets see…one shot to the head..

  4. Glenn Miller says:

    Moderation…my ass.

  5. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    (to paraphrase another joke), thats a convoluted proposition for a…scott, lol
    Who is to say which is the real Croft…you see him good/well recieved (at) singing in the context of the group…people respond to it…his singing is replaced by…something else…still the same person…
    your argument reminds me of the (general) audience reaction to Dylan when he ‘went electric’ at the Newport Jazz Festival, a sense of betrayl that I can almost get…you know what they say…”the only constant is change”….dude

  6. AKH says:

    Screw Seals and Croft. Who cares?

  7. AKH says:

    Hey, upon further reflection I didn’t mean to insult you guys. This “healthy” bantering gives the reader insight to the workings and understanding of the scotts and clarks. (Did I say “scotts” first? Of course I did.) Afterall, this is the whole point of The Doctrine – to better understand those around us…. Guess I’m cranky tonight.