Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

I want to thank Joy for her Guest Post Thursday’s Guest Post (‘scottian style!’)  as is clear both from the number of visitors (‘in the 100s’) and the Comments (‘OM-lol-G!’) yesterday was all that a good scottian Post can and should be… fun, exciting (‘…and a hint of come hither‘).    cool

Today is Friday. Friday is one of the days of the week that clarks love, fear and hate,

• we love that it is neither weekday nor weekend
• we fear that we will get swept up in hope (and we hope that we can let ourselves forget that we are letting ourselves be swept up in hope)
• we fear that our expectations will be held against us

(Did I make it clear enough in the Title that today’s Post was really meant for clarks and any poor scott* or roger with an overly expressive secondary clark?)

Most of the time, at this point in a post-like-this-one, I’d be all qualifying and explaining and ‘hey-don’t-think-I’m-all-depressed-and-such. No, today I will not indulge in that. For one very good reason: a) the Title was clear enough for any Reader and 2) any of us who are not included in the ‘target audience’ understands the Doctrine sufficiently to not be overly concerned.

Since there is no such thing as a 265 word Post (at least not around here, anymore). Let’s end this Post on a positive note (lol, yes, new Reader that is a setup).

I was thinking,  about Sarah’s concern, expressed in a Comment earlier in the week, about (her) not ‘getting’/not-wanting-to-be-assigned-a-worldview/not-feeling-a-member-of-a-herd-that-she-felt-a-part-of this Wakefield Doctrine thing. I was trying to find the correct way to express the information that I knew would let her understand this thing and I found myself stopping (myself) and thinking, ‘stop it! there are three worldviews, remember, clark?‘. If Sarah were a clark, she would not be asking the kind of questions she is asking. then she must be either a scott or a roger. and, no matter which,  information is not what will help her with this matter.
The Doctrine tells us that we all live and think and act and feel and hate and fight and get confused in one of three worldviews. The Doctrine tells us that ‘it is about us, not them’.   This very simply means that, I need to put myself in her worldview in order to understand her question/concern/misunderstanding/feelings about the Wakefield Doctrine.
That is one of the implications of ‘the Doctrine is for me, not them’ that is often overlooked.   (I was talking to Michelle and Lizzi one Friday vidchat and, for god knows what reason, we got to talking about Michelle taking her father out to lunch. Her father is, according to Michelle, a scott. Michelle was saying how he seems to feel differently about going to a restaurant than she does, and I said, “when you are both standing across the street from the restaurant, the restaurant is experienced differently for both of you. the building (you are both staring at) manifests one way for you, the roger and another way for your father, the scott“)

…one of the main benefits that is the result of a proper understanding of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine is that I know that you may be experiencing the same thing  I am, only differently and if I want to, I might be able to see the world as you are experiencing it.  This is not only the secret to understanding the other person, it is the secret to understanding my own life.

I mentioned a music vid. Johnny Winter died yesterday. So I’ll put up one of my favorite Johnny Winter tunes (from the early….yes, early) 1970s

* don’t worry Christine… it’s** not permanent, your world(view) will re-solidify after a while, as you get healthy’ed-up…and, yes! of course you will retain some of what you found (in your world) during your couchtime

**  your clarklike aspect coming forward making you see the world as a, ‘my-god-everything-is-something-else-sometimes-but-the-same-thing-other-times-how-the-hell-do-these-people-get-out-of-bed-in-the-morning?!?’