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

Thats right, you do see what appears to be an infant in a WWII leather helmet.*

*as to the ‘why are you seeing an infant in a vintage pilot helmet’ you’re just going to have to read the post.**
** ok, seeing how you’re still reading, paragraph 8

Before we get started, a quick note to New Readers: three personal realities; highly reliable identification; learn more about the other person than they know about themselves. Try the middle column, back on the homepage. Any of the three will get you started. Questions? Best way to sort through things and get started.

Speaking of New Readers, a long established insight is, if a person comes back here and reads a post more than once, its a lead-pipe cinch they are a clark. If not, they’re a scott or a roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect. This observation is less significant than its meant to be reassuring to those who feel there’s something to this thing and just want it to start making sense.

Should this apply to you, I hate to say it, but you picked a bad post to start your education in the Wakefield Doctrine. But then again, who am I to say what kind of post is most likely to encourage a Reader to connect the dots that are starting to appear.

That said, we need to continue the conversation begun in yesterday’s post. The topic: How best to learn the language of ‘the other two’ predominant worldviews of the Wakefield Doctrine?

(Reminder: the predominant worldviews that account for the existence of the three ‘personality types’ of the Doctrine are, for all intents and purposes, reality. The reality, the world of each of the three types. To wit: A place where one is intrinsically separate and apart from; a world where everything surrounding us is predator or prey and a place that is established, with rules that exist separate and apart from the person who finds themselves in the middle of.)

While our theory of clarks, scotts and rogers does, for reasons less understood than totally enjoyed, describe the characteristic behaviors and social strategy ‘go to(s)’ of each of the three, we can only infer the nature/character of the world they are inhabiting. These, admittedly superficial, descriptions allow us to infer what it is like to be in the reality of the predominant worldviews other than our own. We cannot, as of yet, know what it is like to be: a clark, scott or a roger unless (it) is our reality.

Fortunately, the Doctrine provides that, while we settle (and develop) in only one of the three realities, we retain the potential, the capacity, to experience the world as do ‘the other two’. Unfortunately, we’re limited in how far into the (other) worldviews we can be aware of, due to our lack of language.

So, lets return briefly to our language metaphor. Mentioned towards the end of yesterday’s post, we likened the experience of one’s predominant worldview as being the one, of three countries, that we flew over as tiny, babies, the country in which our plane landed. (Sure, you can misconstrue my words as implying that we were the pilots, but if you choose that interpretation, then we’ll have to insist that you include, in your visual, wearing those leather helmets from the wars of the last century and, as long as we’re in the 1900s, you’re flying a B-25 type airplane. Because, well, you’re a baby and can’t really be too choosy.)

Without claiming any qualification for understanding linguistics or the teaching of foreign languages, (this properly falls in Cynthia’s domain), I will assert that, for our purposes, one’s native language is a major element in the fabric of a person’s reality. To genuinely experience another culture, it surely must be necessary to be so fluent as to be thinking in that (land’s) language.

Otherwise, like Denise‘s trip to Paris, France, we are walking, as confidently as our little ‘Let’s Speak French’ books can help, hoping to encounter situations we studied up on. You know, a bistro or a cafe (with an accent over the ‘e’) or a guy with a beret or a young woman wearing black-silk stockings and smoking a Gauloise.

The Wakefield Doctrine is our little book. It is better than nothing. (For that matter, compared to the guides to other personal realities available in all those other ‘personality theories’ it is better than anything else available.)

Tomorrow, let’s meet here again and I will relate the story of ‘The Discovery of Referential Authority’.

(though I’d love to take credit for being consciously clever with this choice of music vids, once again, the award goes to the iceberg part of my mind.)