the Wakefield Doctrine

In the Week ahead:

• the clarklike girl that Mel has hostagized (temporarily)?  her name is Violet ( thanks to Melanie for the name which really fits the character)
• we meet ‘Meg’ for the first time, back in the kitchen,  getting ready to help a friend in need, willing to do something she never thought she would find herself doing ( thanks to Stacy, who better watch out for her character, so could end up a source of trouble for everyone…)
• Jen (or Jenni) puts in an appearance and I have a feeling that she is going to be controversial to many Readers, ( thanks to Janine for this character, though I gots a feeling that the character will seem different than Janine might have envisioned … hint: a rogerian female as opposed to a clarklike female, who knows at this point?
• …will need to consult with Cyndi about her character, who she describes as,  ‘an evil genius (and) he pretends to be nice, but oh, no, he’s evil!’  I think, Cyndi, that you are describing the CEO of the Company that everyone (nearly everyone) at the party works for, and yes he is definitely going to put in an appearance
• Emily offered this: “a guy named something like Jake who wants to sleep with all t he single and married women in the office…you know, the office sleazeball – every office and every party needs one of those, right?” well, we’re already there!  Just need to change the name to ‘Jimmie’  (I mean, the frickin guy is throwing a birthday party for himself and invited everyone and…and there’s a girl  jumping from a cake later on!  Sleazy enough Emily? lol
• Michelle  while Alex ( Ms. Delguidace to the newer employees) is a scott, please stay close, as I may need your input (as a rogerian female) ’cause something tells me that our Ms. Delguidice will be havin a bit of run in with a couple of rogers, later in the evening

1. the person you hear (for now) is a clark
2. the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that you have the potential of all 3 personality types
3. call in with a question. The one that you would ask if we were standing in line at a Dunkin Donuts and since there are 2 people ahead of us in line (and the first person in line has just unfolded a 8.5 by 11 yellow line sheet of paper), you know we have a minute so you turn to me and say, “you know, I’ve been wondering….”

Thanks again to Molly and Jennifer and Denise for the perspective (ok ok! I promise not to use that word during the 30 Minute Hour…. but I reserved the right to be ponderous here…lol)

1) Suppose you knew what ‘the other person’ was thinking, would you feel good about (being able to know that) or would you not feel good? If you are the type of person who thinks that seeing things from the perspective of the other person, then the Wakefield Doctrine has much to offer. If you are a person who wants to have an edge when interacting with others in the course of a day, then you should know that the Doctrine gives a person an advantage and if you feel that knowing more about a person is better than knowing less, then despite your aversion to the novel and the outre’, the Wakefield Doctrine is something you should try to learn. The Doctrine offers a perspective on human behavior that you will not find anywhere else. And you can’t get it wrong… if you can remember the characteristics of the 3 types and you can suspend your disbelief enough to be able to imagine that everyone is living out life in a slightly different reality… you are there.

2) as follows:

Hey Reader! Yeah, you!

Do you believe that your (personal) history defines and (pre)determines your future or what? Is there such a thing as the momentum of habit. (The ‘momentum of habit’  is the notion that what we are is simply a more elaborate form of what we have always been.) (Cheery thought, no?)

Well? Do you think it does?  (Don’t you dare touch that “Back” button.)
(in a fairly creepy, sudden shift to a calm tone…)  “Do me a favor, you know something about us here at the Doctrine…

…look back on your life. Try to remember and recall the things you have done, the places you have lived, the people you have known, since as far back as you can.
Now: erase the names of the people, delete the addresses of the locations and take off the labels of the things you have done (a job title, your education, religious designations).
You can still remember your life, can’t you?
Even with names and labels removed/deleted/eliminated, you know that you have been alive, a life that is yours and yours alone.
You know, even without the names, that you lived in one place (or many different places), you knew a few people (or a lot of people) and you spent your days…doing this (or doing that).
Your ‘life story’ runs from the first (often vaguely recalled) times you remember as a child and continues, an un-broken line up through and right to the present moment.

Pretty goddamn ‘straight’ line isn’t it?

Look at your life in terms of how many different interests and activities and ways of investing your time that you have experienced. How different was your life when you were 7 years old compared to when you were 17 years old?(…or 27 or 77…)
(Yeah, yeah scott, I get the ‘I gots the girlfriends/boyfriends thing’ Does not matter. Lose the names, and they (still) are people you shared yourself and your time with, no different from a best friend in second grade or a spouse in middle age or the person in the bed next to yours in the nursing home.)
What I am trying to get across here is that the important thing  is not the names of the people, places and activities that comprise(s) your life.
Rather, I am asking you to consider the question, what did they (seem) to add to your life, why did you give them your time!?

I want the Reader to consider their lives without the qualification/rationalization/justification that we all impose when we reflect on our lives.

… ‘he was a great friend, even though he was an asshole’… ‘I really liked spending time with her, but I had to because she was family’ … “of course we are happy together! We have beautiful children and a nice home’… ‘I know this is a boring job, but I will stick with it, because otherwise, what will I do?…’maybe I can still pray and maybe its not too late for me…”who will take care of me if I get sick?’…

(These little quotes barely hint at the myriad of ways that we employ to make the fact that what constitutes ‘our lives’, our essential nature and character,  is the same today, (as you read this Post), as it was on your very first day at school.)

So?
So what, what is wrong with that, at least I have a life that I can look at and say, ‘hey I’m not doing so bad’!

(You are correct, scott.  and someone please tell roger to come back into the room, we have stopped talking about life as if it were totally unpredictable and un-certain. We won’t talk about interchangeability any more.)

Well, that was fun, wasn’t it?  (Yes, I am seriously getting ready to close out this Post for today.) (No, I actually don’t have a more satisfying denouement for todays Post)

(writer leaves, house lights stay off…)

If pressed, I would have to say the point of this (Post)  is that our essential natures (clarks, scotts and rogers) will determine how our lives are experienced and will force a consistency throughout the years (of our lives).
Having said that, I will remind everyone that the Wakefield Doctrine is predicated on the idea that we all have the full range of potential, we are all (potentially) clarks and scotts and rogers.
And despite how this Post reads, we always have the potential to feel, act, or think in the manner of the other two personality types.

Which, in fact, really is the purpose of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).

 

Our ‘local weather’ is currently manifesting in one of my all time favorite forms… warm, rainy and windy…on a December day.  This Post from 2009 came about just because the weather outside my window looked like this song sounded (in my head) and the words just followed from that. It was one of the first occasions of a self-triggering Post idea.