Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
“I’ve called you here because we know something new about that strange, strange land of the roger.”
I hadn’t planned on writing a Post today. I’m finally getting traction on Chapter 9 (Blogdominion) and with only so many words in me, I thought to surpass on writing a Post today.
That, (for you New Readers), that use of the word ‘surpass’? is a deliberate reference to the rogerian worldview, be best if you looked it up.
So, I’m getting ready for work this morning. I open a letter from Blue Cross (Blue Cross motto: ‘we’re in control of your lives, you would think that paying us tons of money would be enough, but you’d be wrong! We enjoy sending mildly threatening letters to you, every now and then, not just because it upsets you, but precisely because it makes us feel good (in an institutional sense, of course)’ whew! long ‘throw away’ joke, even for us here at the Doctrine!) and it said something about, how, at a certain point in time, I need to make the transition to other medical coverage. So naturally, I said to Phyllis (who was standing in the kitchen cooking her lunch to take to work), “Damn! I really want to get very expensively sick before I have to quit Blue Cross! Seeing how much money I’ve paid them over the years, it would be a shame to do otherwise.”
To which Phyllis replied, “…you wouldn’t want to hold onto one thing and give up a benefit in another form… like not paying a bill on principle.”
And I stopped. I said, “My god! that happened 30 years ago. rogers never change the profile of the people in their lives.”
Several things followed:
- I realized that not only do rogers hold on to things from the past, (about themselves and about others), but they establish what can best be termed a ‘profile’ upon the establishing of a given relationship
- Phyllis, fortunately is a roger with a strong secondary clarklike aspect, so she can talk about her rogerian worldview, at least as much as any of us can talk about our predominant worldviews… you know, it’s our reality, so we tend to not know what other people (in ‘the other two’ worldviews) are not experiencing or are otherwise unaware of, and so we could talk about this establishing a profile
- this is very cool, because finding artifacts or landmarks that are ‘way inside’ a different worldview is tres difficult
- how difficult? well there are only a few, the best example being from our rogerian brethren’s world…. and that is the concept of ‘referential authority’ which tells us that if we encounter a person who wishes to impose their will on us, but almost always tells us that ‘it’s because that’s way it’s done‘ or ‘everyone knows that‘ or ‘it says so in the Manual’ then we need to be getting out our checklist of rogerian characteristics
- finally, and this where the Doctrine is so very helpful, Phyllis and I continued our discussion of rogerian profiles and agreed that rogers can change their profile (of a person, place and thing), but it is always on ‘an additive basis’
New Readers? I’ll leave that last item un-elaborated upon, changes on an additive basis is the best way and, not coincidently, the best way to describe this new artifact of the rogerian worldview.
About clarkscottroger
On an additive basis. Interesante.
I sort of get not paying a bill on purpose. I have been known to cut off my nose….
… yeah talk about lifes bitter pleasures, (cutting ones nose and all)… there are a bunch other of the love the pain, pleasures but that’s for another Post
huh…. interesting… true I think… I am starting to wonder if my Rogerian isn’t stronger than my Clark, meaning I misread myself from the start …or if its just a lot of therapy and current life circumstance… which I am still convinced is an underestimated and under-addressed factor in the Doctrine. BUT SEE what I just did there? I just went all Roger on your ass…. huh….
lol
(by the way, if it helps, the way we see rogerian validation is in the degree of non-emotional assent we get. referential authority, once conceptualized and presented to a roger was met with a ‘well, of course, what else is new’
there’s nothing wrong with being a roger and lets just leave my ass out of this
lol
Too late pal…your ass started this whole mess…lol…
I have a very strong and healthy Roger in me and always remember how important the stainless serving dishes are (LOL). The front picture was me with “my hat” and our Rogerian dog Bella – thanks for reminding me that being a roger isn’t all bad. :).
stainless steel serving dishes!! they (or the concept they represent) are to your people what the slouch and mumble is to a clark and the shout and the sexual innuendo is to a scott
no, no it is not
Im so confused…i dont give a crap about metaphoric or otherwise serving dishes … And slouch and mumble is the way i live….i know, i know, every trait at sometime…
“Profile”! Eegads that fills in another piece of the rogerian puzzle. It does in fact e’splain a whole lot.
I am who I am to the rogers in my life from the time of the first “imprint”? from the “first impression”, the beginnings of the relationship? Hm…and nothing changes a roger’s view/profile/sense of/who I am except to add to their “profile” of me… Just working this out loud here…..
This begs the question – will rogers ever “see” the self-developed me? If a roger knows me from 20 years ago, then sure, on one level I am who I am (a clark). But if I know I’ve evolved (my term for self-development), how does a roger account for the “evolved” me? Will they simply take note, indulge me, humor the “new me” when I deviate from the “original me”? What do they do with the “additives”? :) Wait! Will they even “see” the evolved me?!
Sure…they acknowledge the additions correct? They just wont let you forget where you came from.
and you too…. remember rogers live in a world that is not only quantifiable, but there are Right Ways (of life)
they will not, as you correct observe, let you forget where you came from because (damn! I forgot how cool this Doctrine really is….) they are non-causal lifeforms hypo-chronological… which you and I discussed like. last year without knowing that it would take a year to discover the supporting understanding of it!
thank you, z!
you’re absolutely correct
Question. Is that a recent photo of you in an all but empty room sitting at a desk? Just wondering.
I’m having an interesting experience with a roger in my midst. Actually, so many PhD types are rogers, I’m finding. Jeez. Perhaps THIS was why I figured out I didn’t want to do that, actually. Once upon a time I thought about education to the PhD. But then I learned of the idea of “unschooling” myself. :D Just gimme a youtube video and I’ll tell you what I learned. ;)
yes… it’s photo of me the first day I moved into my new office (same company, private office)… there is a Doctrine tale behind the office, involving rogers. but the more interesting (and instructive) tale is how the photo came to be! There is a woman in the office I have worked with over the years, she’s a scott with a (fairly) significant secondary clarklike aspect so the thing was, once the management decision was made, ‘sure clark, the office is yours’ (after much drama), my response was, ‘ok that’s good, I guess I’ll get around to moving in eventually…’ (yes, I am a clark)…. well, I’m a clark with the Doctrine, so I thought, who in the office should I tell first? and I thought, lets tell my scottian friend. So I sat in her office and said, ‘so, it looks like I got the office’ and she looked at me and got up and walked to my desk (which was not in an office) and started gathering things on the top of the desk, so I’m laughing (’cause I got the Doctrine, ya know) and said, ‘hey what the hell are you doing?” and she said, “you’re moving to your office today!” So I went along with it and got up to the office and as soon as I sat down, she said, ‘hey, I need to take a photo’ hence the photo in the post. (postscript: I had an appointment right after she took the picture. I returned a couple of hours later and everything in my original desk was in my office (she made a couple of rogers carry the heavy stuff)….
is this a Doctrine or what?
lol
lol. So..you’re saying that we clarks should seek out the scotts and befriend them? ;)
actually, I would submit that we do that naturally (we clarks, all have at least one (and not more than 3 scottian friends))…. there is a certain affinity between clarks and scotts (to a scott) we’re interesting, and competitive (in a secret way) and…. and! we’re not food! (…. the natural preferred food group of scotts are rogers!) that we’re not food and not a scott i.e. pack member allows our scottian friends some rare rest time…. they don’t have to wrestle us for ranking and we aren’t prey… so they can more themselves with us.
ya know?
Additives. Of course there are additives.But you always have the original on file somewhere, like still keeping Windows 95 on floppy disks in a box on the floor. Cause you never know.
Example: Denise Now- Thin and trim, maybe a bit too much so…very high sense of style and presentation…EmmyLou Harris hair…very striking effect overall. Gorgeous!
Denise Then… Piles of brown curls tucked into a black beret, bright blue scarf with silver threading, camelhair winter coat, and Timberlines. Equally pretty damned cute…see?
It’s best to keep it all on file.
Surprisingly, when I apply this concept to my own self, I just a see younger, stronger complete idiot who has somehow managed to survive this far. This also has to be kept on file, although much like Windows 95, I am not quite sure if there is a point to it.
There. That clears it up nicely, doesn’t it?