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

It’s understood that a significant portion of the effort behind (understanding, developing and applying) the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine is specifically intended to help clarks.

Which is not to say that clarks need the Wakefield Doctrine more than scotts or rogers. Wait a minute, we do say that. Which is not to say that clarks are the only one, (of the three), to see in the Doctrine the possibility of direct benefits, impacting their daily lives. Wait… we do say that. Which is not to say that the Wakefield Doctrine offers insights and perspectives that our scottian and rogerian friends cannot, and, in fact, do not benefit as a result of coming here and reading and commenting and such. Wait! we do say that? Well, I guess that leaves us where we have always been:

the Wakefield Doctrine is a unique and useful and very much (a) fun way to look at the behavior of people. the Doctrine is a perspective that offers us (an additional) opportunity to better understand the people in our lives. employing this tool, we all can gain an insight into the world, ‘as the other person is experiencing it’, and, because of this increased understanding, we need never again say, “how could they go and do such a thing? I really thought I knew them better than that!“

But we already knew that, didn’t we? Lets, then, broaden our understanding of this here Doctrine here, shall we? We all know that the personal reality experienced by clarks is referred to as, the world of the Outsider. As a person who grew up and developed (their) personality in the worldview of the Outsider, clarks are creative and introspective, funny and hardworking. Because they live in the personal reality of the Outsider, clarks are subject to a seemingly endless cycle between (near-unrealistic) hope and soul-crushing despair (survival being an indication of an inner strength that, were it not expended on surviving what would seem an un-justified and un-necessary level of self-criticism-doubt-fear, would be, like, totally impressive). Thats simply the nature and character of the world as experienced by clarks, scotts and rogers have no picnic-of-a-life either. But today is about clarks.

So what is it about clarks that makes today’s post interesting? Well, to appreciate that, we first must understand the double bind that lies at the core of every clark, and that is: a) clarks maintain that the only path available to them is the intellect, the ‘knowing/learning’ of things and 2) they, (the clark), are Outside(r)[s] and c) there must be a reason for their being different.  (I sense that those Readers who are not clarks and/or those Readers whose secondary clarklike aspect is developed only to the degree necessary to find this theory interesting, but not developed enough to imagine the world of the Outsider (at least be able to imagine it without being forced into a reflex sympathy response), are beginning to drift off, so lets get to the point.)
The problem with being an Outsider (who is) trying to understand their way, ‘back to being a real person’, is that, ‘an Outsider’ is, by definition, unique. As in…. only one of a kind. If I am the only one of a kind, then how can I gain a perspective/understanding of the world that is anything more than what I already possess? If I’m ‘the only one of my kind’, then how can anyone tell me anything that genuinely applies to me? And, besides, if I spend my life looking for ‘the Answer’, then how can I know more than I (already) know?

see what I mean?

gots to cut this short. work calls. if there are any clarks (or, hell, scotts or rogers) who want to know what I believe the answer to this conundrum is, the answer is: identification  I’ll have to follow-up, later in the day to this tease-ending. tempus fugits, yo, tempus totally fugits