the Wakefield Doctrine

Short Post this morning, much to do.  Not much time to do it in.

Trying to come up with something totally cool and catchy cause it will be one year tomorrow when this thing started.  Nothin.  Not only do I have nothing, I am feeling my clarklike aspect start to kick in…in reaction to the perceived pressure of commemorating/celebrating/whatever the hell it is that one is supposed to do on significant milestones. (Sounds like a Lesson of the Day).

the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day.  Not so much a lesson as an observation of the differences between clarks, scotts and rogers in response to societally designated important days. (Which include birthdays, wedding anniversaries, retirement and funerals).  On second thought, let’s start with the point of this whole exercise in blogation which is to present a way of thinking about stuff, mostly people.  This way of thinking is called the Wakefield Doctrine and it is done along the lines of ‘personality types’, as in astrology, phrenology, scientology; you know it’s an ‘ology’ which means it’s scientific and you should read it and believe it. (Plus it is a theory, as in the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) so it surely has to have something interesting to it.  And it does.  Not unlike a supermarket magazine rack, the Wakefield Doctrine has something interesting, something that should be true about it.  And even though pages and pages are spent on talking about the basis or, the underlying principles, the supporting evidence and uses words like ‘habitual perception’ and ‘predeliction’ it is still just one of those things that have enough ‘truth’ to it to make people remember it.  It all comes down to getting up from your computer and going to work and hearing some ‘middle management’ type person hold forth on action lists, performance paradigms all while sucking up to their boss in public (and without the slightest bit of self-consciousness) and then 30 minutes later find that same person gossiping in the break room.  The goal of this blog is to have you at this point say to yourself, “what a roger“, or be with friends and the person sitting on the fringe of the group even though they have been part of that gathering for years, suddenly noticing that that person has been saying things and somehow their words evaporate in the air (like cartoon dialog balloons fading as they move) only to hear those very words come out of the mouth of that really noticeable person, much to the delight of the crowd, who are all laughing and saying things like, “they are the funniest person how do thy think of that stuff” and you look back to the person on the fringe and you see the secret smile and you say to yourself, “I believe I have just caught a glimpse of a clark“…(the scott was there all along, a hub around which the social structure rotates).

That’s what I think I want to say on the (clark: “whatever”; scott: “fuckin aye big day partay”!!!; roger: “I have done a great job, but it hasn’t been easy and you are all so lucky”) First Anniversary of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theroy of clarks, scotts and rogers) blog.

But I guess I will be talking about how far we have come, and where we might be going, blah, etc, blah.  The tone of this Post is attributable to my clarklike aspect, the eternally disappointed, why can’t I be more like, I really need this thing to make up for all my shortcomings, part of me that was really exacerbated by my going out into the blogsosphere ( looking for images for today’s Post) and, by virtue of the search terms (anniversary, birthday, celebrations etc) I was neck fuckin deep in (successful), (self-promoting), (thousands of Readers for year after year), and (did I mention I am the best of all blog-writers?), blogs.  And believe it or not, my reaction was that I need to make the Wakefield Doctrine work even better, faster cause all of what I see in terms of successful, high-profile blogs have a rogerian self-promotion combined with a scottian aggressive confidence behind them.  I need to do better for the Doctrine.

Talk stop.  Music start.

(Since we clearly are of an age that makes the Beatles irristable, let’s get the obvious tune out of the way.  Damn it, this is the Wakefield Doctrine and if we are nothing else we are not going to be (too) predictable, so there is no fuckin way we will be doing the vids that you would think one might might do on Firsaversary Day)

(I need to tell you, I like the live vids better but the only one I could find was Paul McCartney in recent times and though it was quite a good, faithful rendition of the song…he just looks so very, very old…lol so much for not caring about age.)

Yes? Britney? …Sure why not?

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:

Wakefield 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.

…(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