‘ello and welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Special Edition! The Royal Wedding, aka … (cue the music Mr. B!)
We are the world
We are thechildrenrogers
We are the ones who make a brighter day ( and provided you follow our rules, you will benefit )
So let’s start giving ( starting with you, then the person next to you, you know, like in church )
There’s a choice we’re making ( yeah, like any one of us would think independently )
We’re saving our own lives ( well, mine at least, we most likely will get to you later )
It’s true we’ll make a better day ( because we will force you to conform )
Just you and me ( and the other rogers into a semi-organised herd ).
Now I am certain the blogosphere is totally all cranked up on the wedding thing over there in Merry Ole! ( Great Britain, national motto: ‘we used to do this thing, to execute people committing crimes against the Throne, you may have heard of it…hang, draw and quarter…( be a great name for a rock band)? 1
But thats not important right now!
What is important is (that) this is the day to embrace your rogerian aspect. The Ceremony! The Rites! The Tradition!! Royalty! Commoners!! (er, make that commoners). We will say, in all due respect, if we had not already discovered the rogerian personality types in the Wakefield Doctrine, then we would owe the world media, (print and TV and internet), we would owe them big time. Without having a cool name, like roger for this aspect of the human personality, we still would have been confronted with the personality type. Just like Issac Newton (had to) confront the apple that hit him on the head ( …‘why?!! why me!?! I was just sitting here, why did the apple single out me to hit on the head?…what an evil apple tree!…there should be a law against apples hitting me on the head! ) Seriously, if we did not already know that this very specifically talented personality type already existed, we would have had to toil for a way to identify the reason why it was that some people ( estimates are that 66% of the ‘adult’ population is comprised of rogers, predominately rogerian (..hey! shut the fuck up, I’m just about to nail this rogerian cutie…don’t blow my fuckin cover!)
In any event, we are fortunate in that we do have the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ) and therefore we do know who makes up the ridiculously large viewing audience for this here Wedding here (on TV). Not only do we know that the audience is primarily of the rogerian persuasion, but the Doctrine tells us why.
So in rogerian-favored bullet-point, here is what the Wakefield Doctrine tells us about the billion or so “people” watching the Wedding:
- first and foremost rogers are watching because everyone is watching
- hey, this is a Royal Wedding and if there is anything rogers respect, it is royalty
- Pomp and/or Circumstance, rogers just love ceremony
- fabulous clothing and piles of food that could feed a small African nation for a day and a half
- there is history and easily traced genealogy
- it is a global herd event, rogers can hear the lowing of rogers from around the globe ( “…Μουου…Mo’uu…M>click<uuu… “)
We should all take the day off from work or school or family or emergency surgery or Tax Audits or making love and raise our adoring eyes to the East, where, by now,Mr. & Mrs Prince Whoever are pulling the royal sedan over at the Ye Ole Cockey Lockey Motel and Inne ( …’Bangers and Mash every Thursday’! ) for the evening before beginning a life together. God Bless the Queen and them!
1 ) To be hanged, drawn and quartered was the penalty in England for men guilty of high treason. The convicted were fastened to a wooden hurdlewhich was dragged by horse to the place of execution. Once there, they were ritually hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded and quartered (chopped into four pieces). As a warning against further dissent, these remains were often displayed at prominent places, such as London Bridge. For reasons of public decency, women convicted of high treason were burnt at the stake ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_hanged,_drawn_and_quartered)
About clarkscottroger
My list of useless things:
بیکار کی چیزوں میں سے میری فہرست : تیتلی پر ایک بیل پر پستان، دانت، امریکی بت، TSA، رائل fuckıng خاندان. کیا ممکن ہے مقصد کیا ان پرجیوی،، کچھ بھی نہیں، امیر، میں نسل کا، سست motherfuckers کی عبادت کرتے ہو؟ میں نے اسے کبھی سمجھ نہیں کریں گے. بالکل ہم Kennedys ہے. ایک ہی بات. Unmerited توجہ، پیسہ، شہرت، کیوں؟ میں امید کرتا ہوں کہ کم سے کم خوبصورت لڑکا ہے جو شادی آج مل بہتر mistresses سے اس کے والد نے دیکھ لیتی. Camilla پارکر – Bowes – اہ… kennels سے پناہ گزین. آخری راجکماری ہے ڈائنا دماغ کے ذریعے سے پہلے وہ مر جانے کی بات کیا تھی؟ ڈیش بورڈ. مجھے امید ہے کہ دلہن کو اگلے سال کے ایک سیاہ فام بچہ ہے. وہ ایک مقصد ہو جائیں کی خدمت کریں گے. تفریح. ان سب کوئی گدا، ٹیڑھی teethed، خون puddin’ ‘eatin ہونے،” مضامین “، صرف ADORING کہ دو اور اس کے خاندان کو. کیونکہ وہ… ٹھیک ہے ، انہوں نے کیا کیا؟
er.. thanks glenn…
(our apologies to our Urdu friends…hey guys! (لوگ’) thanks for the loan of the language, glenn means well…)
I intended that post for my friends in Urdland.
Seems a good a place as any to make a statement about the interactive aspect of this blog, ie the Saturday Night Drive Call In Show. No acronym here, let it be elongated. (btw, think it is a great idea)
Anyway, I called into the Wakefield Doctrine last evening. A little late. But that’s OK. The only impossible thing I could wish for is that I could have been invisible inside the car to listen in on the conversation between our Progenitor/Creator clark and Downspring Glenn prior to my call. As soon as I called in I am positive an invisible “switch” was flipped. Yessiree.
And so last night, I was more a listener than anything else, “observing” the behavior of our resident clark and senior scott. Did the introduction of a clark into the verbal mix send any cues to our hosts? The answer is yes.
Immediately our lovable Lenny Lunchbox (go to GirlieOnTheEdge’s blog post of same title…almost) attempted to engage in carphone sex with yours truly. Very freshman and all. Implied stuff like “what are you wearing” less the heavy breathing. That ignored, the conversation proceeded. My point? I did not take it personally – my scottian friend was simply being his own scottian self. And what of our clark, he of of elevated clarkhood? (hm….can I call the Pope on that one? Can I request a person be officially considered for clarkhood? Quick gather all the Cardinals for a conclave!)
Our Progenitor clark was in scottian mode his own damn self. A 2 way conversation with a scott and a clark in scottian mode and little ole me, the unobtrusive ever (mostly) polite female clark. The little piece of bastard son information I take away from last night is how even a clark, as close to clarkhood as is our very own, can misinterpret another clark…..when he is in scottian mode. So I ask: if we access one of the other aspects of ourselves, in this situation a clark being more scottian than clark, do we loose the “original sense of self” completely? Or is it more a Sybil like experience – go scottian for a bit, then return to being a clark? Do we, as clarks, sit back and enjoy ourselves as scotts or wonder what just happened?
For me it’s a case of energy being such that my body simply reacts in a particular way without my brain getting in the way. Being sleep deprived is often helpful in accessing my scottian side….somnambulistic clark = raging scott? And yet there have been times I simply acted in a scottian way.
Going to stop now as I feel a pretty big ramble attack coming on. A clark knows what I attempt to say here. An “evolved” roger knows of what I speak. scotts? For them this is just more clarklike shit but they don’t mind if it results in “food”.
(I’m going to hang up my clark suit for the day – gotten a bit wrinkled. Gonna try on something from the 2011 spring/summer scottian line…)
damn good question, which by defintion fits the type (clark or scott or roger)…to each according to their frame of reference.
(In that last), you are totally correct, the scott hears noise and the roger smells familiarity and clarks catch glimpses of themselves.
Not trying to be prosaic (or prozactic, for that matter) but the question you pose is akin to the ‘what does the eye see of itself in the act of seeing’ (or some faux-zen koan droppings -like statement)*
The answer is not so much ‘unknowable’ as it is ‘un-answerable’ and that is meant in the sense of the word ‘able/capable’ of answering as opposed to the information that comprises the answer being beyond reach**
I gots a feeling that the way you ask the question (as a clark) makes the answer impossible, which is not the same as saying what you want to know is not available, taken in the largest view, the clark that you will ‘be reading for’ will be a clark that already knew the answer…the script will provide for it as part (of that particular clark’s backstory)…***
*now that we have cleared the room of the scotts…
** and the rogers…
*** most of the clarks…
Interesting points from DS#1. It has been my experience whether being in the WD-mobile or in the dashboard that the Progenitor clark’s scottian side comes out loud and clear. The interesting thing is that this happens when he is in the company of 2 scotts. He let’s his hair down and gets down and dirty. It’s really an amazing occurrence to witness. And funny as hell. As to the question about “losing our own sense of self” in my opinion no we don‘t. At least not entirely.
For our Progenitor clark it seems that he appears to be taking a “walk on the wild side” but not at the risk of losing his clarklike nature. While enjoying the freedom to throw f-bombs all over the place and being more aggressive (particularly towards rogers) he tries to reel himself in and get back to the matter at hand. But those damn scotts keep getting in the way. I would describe it as “a momentary lapse of reason.” I would be interested in hearing how the Progenitor feels after the scotts have “left the building.” Do you gather your clarklike self together and think “What the hell just happened?” Or do you bask in the temporary inebriation of having let your scottian side out to play?
.(..at this stage of the game) it is like exercise, raquetball, or squash (one of the more frentic of the one-on-one competitive sports)… you feel good (about the exertion) and at the same time you look around and wonder if anyone saw you spitting on the court…it is exhilerating, but it (in my case) is tempered by the realization that I am seeing an aspect of my own self that has always been there and yet I have hardly touched on it…it is a good feeling and it is a horrible feeling and yet there is not a sense of regret, (as in “oh if only I could be like this all the time”)…it is not for a clark to envy the scotts (or the rogers, for that matter)…As much as I loved Ola, it never occured to me that our life together would be better if I were more doglike or she was more human like.
This is not to say that clarks, as a people, do not come away from a situation as AKH describes with feelings of ‘oh god, how could I have acted like that? what will people think’? we like people have and do, but the situation with the people involved in the Wakefield Doctrine has a tenor that is not commonly found…trust is not the correct word, respect only touches on one aspect of the interactions that have gone on in the course of this thing of ours…it’s…its…picture enthusiatic Pilgrims… or Balboa who upon seeing the Pacific Ocean as the first European, falling on the ground, laughing for the joy of it….something like that…