(morning…saturday?…come back later……..
What…you’re still here? Hold on, hold on…..)
Why yes, it is Saturday, another weekend! No school, no work…there was a time when that meant something (to borrow from a Simpsons episode: “Hey everyone a old persons going to tell us something, let’s all listen”…)
No, no not that I am an old person. We have no ages at the Doctrine….wait a minute…I think we do ‘have ages’ in the context of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
(Jeez, does this guy ever give it a rest?)
(No, no I don’t…laugh out loud….oops, sorry I meant LOL)
No, really. It is Saturday and since (many) people are not at work, we can keep this Post short…there is a whole day out there, I assume you have things to do…”Honey you said you would clean the gutters today!…absolutely…just need to check my work email…be right there”
So Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day(saturday edition): Since you raised the question, there are no ages of clarks, scotts and rogers, except the age at which we become predominately one (of the three). This seems to occur quite early in life; before the age of three is the current thinking. Up until this point we all have the qualities of all three in equal proportion. Then, for reasons not yet understood, we all lock into one of the three, we become clarks, scotts or rogers.
(Keep in mind that) we are not saying that you start exhibiting behaviors or characteristics of the three, the genius of the Doctrine is that it proposes that we begin to experience the world from a certain perspective (clarklike, scottian or rogerian) and it is our reactions to a world so percieved that account for being a clark or a scott or a roger.
(The gutters are probably starting to look kinda fun at this point, no?)
To wrap this age thing up. We become the type (clark or scott or roger) that we are at an early age. We retain the qualities of the other two and are aware (of these qualities) to varying degrees throughout our lives. Our ability to accept these other two (Ways of seeing the world) is directly proportional to the practical value of the Wakefield Doctrine in our day-to-day lives.
(…are we done yet? now can we go outside and play?)
Done now. Go outside and play. (Someone tell scott, when you find him, that he can leave now and go out and play) (clark…step away from the keyboard…go outside…put the pda down too…) (roger, you’re the only one with the patience to sit through all of this, you deserve a day off as well…btw did the early Stones have a Firebird promotion deal, or what?)
Next week the topic of the Good…the Bad…Decide Right Now!! will be Animal Shows. (DownSpring Ms Akh is a big fan and we will include other shows)
Oh…oh…almost forgot! got an email from Friend of the Doctrine Jason…the hat (for his damn head) has landed. Excellent! Go to his blog Project: Enlightenment and say hello, we wish him support and godspeed…he will wear the headgear of the Doctrine…and like Saul on the road to Damascus… “Hey Dude…great hat, what’s the matter with your eyes, yo?”
May you all have the courage of Jason (and Mel out in “Michigan”) to wear such fine apparel…walking among people as if you were still a normal person…knowing that at the next turn someone could come up and say, “What, are you some kind of extremistic person…what Doctrine?”
To which you might reply, “Hey get your own hat (for your damn head) it’s easy, those crazy-ass Wakefield Doctrine people are frickin’ givin ’em away”
(and for later in the day….)
damn, how good was this guy? live no less…
About clarkscottroger
What indeed accounts for the “choice” of perception? At such an early age the body, assumedly without prejudice, chooses to view the world in a particular way? Is it environmental factors at play? Are we looking at the classic nature v nurture argument?
What about one’s parent(s). Let’s go with the assumption of having 2 parents. Can the offspring of a roger and clark “become” a scott? Or is it more likely they “become” either a roger or a clark?
Does the sex of the parental “type” in a certain combination have any influence on the outcome of their offspring?
Would the offspring of a rogerian father and a clarklike mother always produce rogers and clarks? Could a scott ever come of this union? If the father is a clark and the mother rogerian then what?
Could a scott/scott union produce anything other than a scott?
…Is there a scott in the house!!! Is there a scott in the house, for the love of god someone please shout a simple declarative sentence!!
(Heh…heh)
No, really…DS1 does have a point…but if I might reference the Post to which the Comment was appended…(no, roger, that will not result in an infinte regression loop)…hey DS1…you work too hard…go outside and have some fun…NEWS FLASH to clarks…it is OK…I repeat…it is OK to have some fun for yourself without feeling that you need to earn it.
Over…(yeah, right)
AKH yo…speak of simple fun…
Jeez… do these guys ever give it a rest? Oy Freakin Vey! ;)
Okay, LOVE the new look. Makes you look like you actually know what you’re talking about.
Second, even kinda missed you. But, in all the rush to get my new book about Shipping Container Homes released, I forgot I missed you. :)
Third, I was wondering, if Clark and Roger had a kid, would his name be SCOTT? (Wait, his name would be “Miracle” I suppose, never mind…)
Fourth, Be we Clarks, Rogers, or Scotts, we blame it on our environments, growing up, right? Is there a support group for that? So, to do THAT math, I may actually be an “Anti-Clark,. or something like that, just to spite my parents?
Man, this stuff is complicated. Please pass the Tylenol, extra strength, huh?
Again, love the look… I just wish the writing was as good! (ONLY KIDDING!) :)
Ronin
Good to hear from you, Ronin
I believe you would have been the first ‘non-DownSpring non Progenitor’ to write a Comment back, in about aught nine, I reckon. And (you) were a part of the group of three who put us on your blogroll, thereby demonstrating that you didn’t care in what anyone thought of your taste in blogs….we did/do appreciate it. And as you read recent Posts, nothing around here says, ” I am confident. I am secure. I am a leader and have the total respect of my Readers”, as a Wakefield Doctrine hat (for your damn head).
Let us know where to send it and before you can say, “the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) surely is the path to a happy future for all who embrace it” (Well, maybe quicker than that), you will find a this fine apparel showing up courtesy of the Federal Government (who thereby must fully endorse the Wakefield Doctrine!)
No cost, except…a photo of your new hat taken in front of an un-mistakeable landmark of your state/region/or nearby 7-11 (with or without your damn head underneath).
Oh yeah, your question….Thinking both nature and nurture. Sort of like any other human potential, i.e. being good at golf or baseball or engineering…some of us are on the path to becoming (clarks, scotts or rogers) right from the start and for others it is the influence of the environment that encourages one aspect over the other two.
Sounds like a Post to me….
Hey Ronin, funny you should write a comment. I was actually thinking about you the other day while reading the Doctrine and wondered why we haven’t heard from you in so long. I’ll admit that at first I wasn’t crazy about you. In fact I didn’t like you at all. I was offended by your responses (to me). However, with a better understanding of the Doctrine and being a scott and all, I don’t really give a shit anymore. The name “Miracle” (above)… lol. Good one. They’d probably have a panic attack or worse to even remotely consider naming their kid Scott. I can see ’em now, ringing their hands, pacing the floor….
Anyway, good to hear from you.
@Clark;
Okay, I’ll bite, What hallucinogens did you impregnate the hatband with? I’m thinking that since I was apparently raised by wolves in Marine Uniforms, I’m an IVAN.
I’ll take a photo of that hat, on a beach covered in oil. Snake Oil begets oil, huh? :)
@AKH;
Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but my comments were written thinking that the maniac CLARK wrote them all (and even some of the comments)… and HE knew that I was enjoying poking him with a sharp stick. I had no idea that this insanity had more than one author. ;)
And BTW: I don’t agree with everyone. People who do that are called “lemmings.”
As my wife’s illness has progressed faster than the oil that currently heads toward our beaches here in the Gulf, I’ve had my hands pretty full. I’ve written a book on ISBU Home Construction, to try to help families like mine that are running out of options, and and thus are forced to “think out of the box.” I’m trusting that they’ll see that a “life lived in a box”, can be far more fulfilling than a life lived in sticks, attached not to a firm foundation , but a huge mortgage and manipulated by political stupidity.
As to your personal feelings about me, Clark knows me well enough to know that (a) I don’t give a crap what other people think of me. I’m not here to make people feel all KUMBIYAH-ish, I’m more like a reality check. … I stand up and say what I think, regardless of how it will sometimes be received. It’s the difference between men and sheep. Clark knows I hold myself accountable.
And I rarely have “sorrow” attached to it afterward. That, and the fact that cyberspace robs us of the ability to read body-language… rubs some the wrong way. Oh well. Them’s the breaks.
I guess I’m kinda “that old Codger that lives down the dirt road… the one nobody wants to mess with.” That’s okay by me. Mom never told me that I was a “Clark, or a Scott, or a Roger”. She told me that I was a “carefully crafted sociopath.” I got skills… ;)
And anybody who calls my mom a liar better have more than just army boots…
…actually serious as a heart attack about the nearly free hat (for your damn head) lol
Once the people of the world begin to understand the ways of clarks, scotts and rogers there will no longer be the excuse, “I just reacted, I had no idea they would respond that way!” No more, “they made me do that/feel that way/assume that”…gone… over.
And the best part is that we can all benefit from knowing that, as much as the other person seems: over-powering/dependent/resistant/antagonistic…we know that we have those very same qualities within…
Ms AKH is one of the bright lights in the Doctrine array of DownSprings…she brings an enthusiasm to this thing that helps show the plus side of the scottian personality…and, in her Comment is demonstrating (the) scottian perspective so well that we may need to add it to the Page on scotts. (The thing about, “at first you were an asshole, but then I realized…”) very, totally characteristic of her people (would interact with another person).
I liked what you said about “…cyberspace robs us of the ability to read body-language“… good point. For us here at the Doctrine that does apply but is not as much a limitation as it might appear. What people write, I believe is more indicative of the mind (behind the writing) than is spoken conversation…thought must go into to choosing one’s words. (Hell, there is a saying, “Now choose your words carefully”).
So we (at the Wakefield Doctrine) have a slight advantage over the other 99,999,950 people in the blogosphere…we can figure which of the three a person is, simply on reading what they say…
Lots of fun.
Total props on the book. Not so much what is to be found within the pages of the book, that you have worked hard at the ‘Day in the Life of… is un-mistakeable. I have more respect for the “simple” fact of you actually did the thing. All of us think we have the material/expertise/knowledge/whatever to write a book but only a tiny damn portion of us actually do it. Hats off!
(send an email to me with your mailing address and I will send you the appropriate hat (for your damn head)).