…and maybe even a damn Venn diagram. How cool would it be to have some of those rascals set into a Post…”…and further in conclusion, I submit the following Venn (damn) diagram, for the Board of Reviews consideration…” Yeah!
Hey, even though we are in summer school and most of the good (interesting) ‘voices’ here at the Wakefield Doctrine are out gallivanting around doing interesting things, doesn’t mean that we can’t have fun, sometimes. Almost eerie when you stop to think of it. It was without thought that we have read that all the ‘others’ have gone off on summeristic project, except for Jimmy (our scottian) friend of Janie Sullivan. And who do we hear from in the first of these Summer Session Posts, but DownSpring glenn! Talk about life imitating art, or art dressing up like life or some damn thing. At any rate all we seem to have is Mr. B and the occasional Postcard from the others.
But the Wakefield Doctrine is always open. So let’s make the best of our time here. Yesterday saw the beginning of a(n) argument centering on the difference between clarks and scotts. That is as good a place to start today as any. (You should go back to the Post and read the Comments) But to paraphrase; no…I best not paraphrase otherwise someone will insist that I took it out of context or inflectuated the meaning in the wrong way or did not understand the orientational spin, so instead here are some clips, with my second favorite grammar (nooo mf, those are grammatical devices…you’re welcome) thingies…ellipseseses
Seals and Croft. Seals went on… as a country singer. Croft went into some… religion thing … At concerts he would sometimes make anti-abortion speeches. Talk about being too serious to be entertaining. Same thing happened to Lenny Bruce…at the end…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? 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.
I’m sorry, Clark…I’m sorry, Clark… I’m sorry, Clark…I’m sorry, Clark…I’m sorry, Clark…I’m sorry, Clark…I’m sorry, Clark.. Croft 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 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.
Now, does anyone have anything to add? Then…”allow me to retort”…(damn I will never get tired of that Samuel Jackson line in Pulp Fiction…in fact let’s hear the master do this thing)…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DL1yfQFa4o(lol) anyway…the above is useful in a “compare and contrast” sort of way. As a scott, glenn evaluates on the basis of ‘what it’, i.e. Lenny Bruce was funny, then not funny therefore the element of change spotted in closest proximity to being not funny is the false Lenny, everything and anything prior to it was the real Lenny.
But, of course, this is not about Lenny Bruce or Dan Croft or even about what is the nature of the relationship between the performer and audience. It is about how the scott (of clarks, scotts and rogers, theory of) perceive the world. Which actually is not quite the point…the real point being what kind of world/reality does the scott experience?
Afterall, the Wakefield Doctrine is founded on the proposition that we all have the potential to interact with the world in three distinctive ways, referred to as clarks, scotts and rogers. The Doctrine actually goes further than that, we are really saying that the scott exists in a reality best characterised as a world of predator/prey, black/white, here and now. The genius of the Wakefield Doctrine lies in the fact that if you accept this initial premise, i.e. that glenn, for example is experiencing a world of predator/prey and you put yourself in that (kind) of world yourself, your choices of actions/reactions will be essentially the same.
The Doctrine proposes that behavior follows (from) from the reality the individual experiences and not from some internal inclination to act a certain way, or learned behaviors mimic’d and modeled from family and friends at an early age. If you can imagine the kind of world glenn experiences, you will then know how he will respond to virtually any situation. Beautiful theory, isn’t it? (Thank you, thank you…no! please! sit down everyone please! sit down we are not done yet!)
(Hey!! HEY! what about the clarks‘ take on this? I read a whole lot of commentation yesterday).
Valid point. clarks will take the position that there is no certainty to reality, that there was a time when Dan Croft was an excellent performer. And then there was a time when Dan Croft was an excellent coptic abyssinian preacherman…both were Dan Croft at their finest. The only point of intersection of views (with glenn) was that as a preacher man he was not as good a Croft of Seals and Croft. He should have paid more attention to the audience. But here is where the tangle of perception between a clark and a scott gets interesting! glenn seems to maintain that Croft should have stayed true to his “Seals and Croft” nature, the one that glenn enjoyed listening to. He (glenn) seems to go on to say that only by staying true to that nature was he being true to himself that by changing he betrayed his audience.
I would submit that the change was, in fact, the truest expression of Croft’s scottian nature…he had a (new) message and that was who he was and therefore that was what he had a right to bring to the audience. And if the audience didn’t like it…..then fuck’em
Dudes!!! Complex topic calls for totally complex tunes…
About clarkscottroger
I find your comment(s) Glenn a little confusing (not really but for the sake of saying it and for the sake of trying to add to the conversation and…… yes, this elongated sentence is just for you baby).
Are you suggesting we all born as perfect humans. No need for improvement, enhancement, enrichment, enlightenment or any other “ment”? We are at once and always the “totality” of ourselves?!
Did I miss something? Am I really in the Garden of Eden and damn I just need to be my clarklike best self and life will be good? Are you INSANE! LOL
Talk to me.
Yes. Yes I am..insane. All the best people are. You clarks have a tin ear or something wrong with you which makes it impossible for youse to understand the simple thing being said. No Garden of Eden. No perfect humans. Who the fuck would want that? Do you clarks actually reach for that? Perfection? Arrogant, no? I guess I find the word NEED..offputting. Or somehow not just the right idea. No NEED for change. But sometimes change is good. Improvement is good. My point is you don’t really improve by becoming someone else. You just get diluted and confused. You’re still you trying to be another you??? I think we improve best by being MORE who we really are. Then we are strengthened and fortified. If one of my strengths is playing piano, I could improve by playing more piano in different ways. I could practice more and develop my strength. If one of my strengths is playing piano, do I improve by learning how throw a boomerang? Now I’m just a half-assed piano player, throwing a boomerang poorly when I should be working on my music. I’m a scott. I like it. It works for me. The people who matter to me like me this way. As I mature and develop, I tend to do best when working in my strength areas. Scottian traits that work for me–I keep ’em. Refine ’em. Use ’em more. If I were to consciously try to be more clarklike or more rogerian, I think it diminishes me ultimately. Because now I’m a half-assed scott acting like a pussy roger poorly. Growth for me lies in developing strengths–not in pursuing every shadow of a concept. I’ll leave that to you clarks. Every random thought got to be chewed down to its nub. Every passing idea got to be explored, researched, clung to–in hopes it will somehow…what? Don’t you guys LIKE being clarks? Is that the issue? Scotts like being scotts. It should follow then that clarks like being clarks and rogers like being rogers. But, maybe not. Maybe you guys not-so-secretly don’t really want to be clarks. Is that why you feel no restrictions about reaching toward the other two styles? Do you have any sense of pride of membership in the honored ranks of clarks? Would you PREFER to be a scott or a roger? I’m even troubled by the automatic presumption that we MUST improve, enrich, or enlighten. Nothing wrong with any of that–but do you ever feel OK just being who you are? The clarks I know are cool. Weird, but cool. I like them just like they are. Maybe this question brings out the differences in the worlds we inhabit. Maybe, to see it my way, you’d have to be a scott. And for me to see it your way, I’d have to be a clark. So, I don’t know…keep trying then. Maybe you’ll eventually see it my way if you “become” scottian enough. I’ll never “become” clarklike enough to see it your way. But it’s fun trading thoughts with you, baby. Stimulating…yeah…that’s it…stim…u…la…ting. mmmm.
…according to the Wakefield Doctrine (and you should know, you were in the damn car when it was decided to call it the Wakefield Doctrine)…we are all born with the ‘qualities’ of the three, clarks, scotts and rogers. And that these ‘qualities’, call them tendancies to view the world a certain way remain with us even though by an early age we have one (of the three) become the predominant worldview/ the predominant type we become. The ‘qualities’ of the the other two do not go away, they are just subsumed to the dominant characteristics.
By definition to read and get something from the Wakefield Doctrine, to “get it” is proof sufficient that you have the qualities of all three. Heck I would go further to say: that you are as introspective as your argument indicates says “way clarklike” and the fact that when confronted with something not to your taste (weird clarklike musicians) your first impulse is to say “that suck because those people are….” (a clark would say ‘I don’t like that because…) I would suggest that you critique is a value label, a judgement proclaiming that no one should like (fill in the blank for the weird act) because they are this or that…it sounds almost….rogerian.
All of this is a long winded way of saying, the Doctrine says you are part clarklike and also part rogerian… so how is developing those aspects of your self ‘being something that you are not”
” They be higher up over you”…
In nature, there are perfectly parallel examples that lend support to Glenn’s view.
A pure form is…pure. No need to analyze and dramatize. A pure form doesn’t need to quantify anything, there’s no point and no necessity. If Glenn were a purer Scott, he wouldn’t be bothering with writing comments. He’d be hunting me. If I were a purer Roger, I wouldn’t be bothering to defend him. I’d already be gone. Maddeningly simple, and easy to overlook.
Humans are the only species with free will, and that prevents any of us from being a pure form. It’s as if we exchanged purity for philosophy, and that little transaction got our monkey asses kicked out of the Garden…
so now we have to sit around in a circle and contemplate ‘ isms’ and ‘ ments’ and ‘ ologies’ and…’ines’.
And what about severe aberrations in human behavior? Are those just imbalances in one type over the others? Harvard Deans call it paranoia…or maybe just too much herding instinct.
true statement…since you binyons insist on discussing things where-ever you happen to find your ownselfs…I will take the shortcut and copy/paste the Comment I made in today’s Post in response to glenns little Comment:
…according to the Wakefield Doctrine (and you should know, you were in the damn car when it was decided to call it the Wakefield Doctrine)…we are all born with the ‘qualities’ of the three, clarks, scotts and rogers. And that these ‘qualities’, call them tendancies to view the world a certain way remain with us even though by an early age we have one (of the three) become the predominant worldview/ the ‘type’ we become. The ‘qualities’ of the the other two
do not go away, they are just subsumed to the dominant characteristics.
By definition to read and get something from the Wakefield Doctrine, to “get it” is proof sufficient that you have the qualities of all three. Heck I would go further to say: that you are as introspective as your argument indicates says “way clarklike” and the fact that when confronted with something not to your taste (weird clarklike musicians) your first impulse is to say “that suck because those people are….” (a clark would say ‘I don’t like that because…) I would suggest that you critique is a value label, a judgement proclaiming that no one should like (fill in the blank for the weird act) because they are this or that…it sounds almost….rogerian.
All of this is a long winded way of saying, the Doctrine says you are part clarklike and also part rogerian… so how is developing those aspects of your self ‘being something that you are not”
This should address the rogerian concern of one type’s predisposition to bad things over the other…I would suggest that we like people have our other two forms closer to the surface than most.
Nicely put Roger(The). You also address a question I did not pose (to Mr. Miller) – “And what about severe aberrations in human behavior?”
Comment from the Progenitor clark sums it all up nicely.
Are there any other scotts reading who would “retort”?