RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine- | the Wakefield Doctrine RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine- | the Wakefield Doctrine

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Lets keep it simple this Monday. A brief intro/exegeis*

Glad you mentioned it. One of those Doctrine descriptions: a clark abhors being the center of attention but will not tolerate being ignored.

From June 20 2010

 

…(a) Dude!!!  (b) oh man! no frickin way (c) Jay, call me what you want, but you gots to see a doctor!..

(Now that we have had our little Sunday morning humor.) We are entering the week of the 26th of June, which means the week of the Firstaversary of the Wakefield Doctrine…yay

(Which might as well be the topic of today’s Wakefield Doctrine, Lesson of the Day.)
When it comes to celebrations in general and anniversary(s) in particular… clarks do not enjoy them, scotts doand rogers make them a part of their life.  In terms of adding to our understanding and use of (the Doctrine), what does knowing this do for us?  Two things: if you are curious about yourself, you can consider the reasons and ramifications of (your types) response to these events…which pretty much makes you a clark; if you are curious about how the other two relate to celebrations then, that makes you a clark (or possibly a momentarily bored scott).  Let’s look at the easy one first.

rogers love anniversaries, cause they are the benchmarks of tradition, the markings of history, all the things that make up the world (as a roger perceives it);
scotts like anniversaries and will glady accept an invitation for a simple enough reason, contained in one word: buffet
clarks
do not like celebrations and/or anniversaries in general because they are affairs that by their very definition celebrate fellowship/shared experience/belonging

(…are we almost through here?…I have an Invitation to the Sherwin Williams Wall Paint Exposition…”Drying through the Ages“…have to pace myself here…)

Lol.  Yeah sometimes it do get a bit tedious…

…speaking of tedious…actually speaking of nothing to do with this Post, I have made ‘pop music’ a project.  That is to say, I (recently) made a conscious decision to acquire a taste for pop music.  Now this is such a clarklike thing to do that no further explanation should be required.  But I will anyway, cause we gots way too much white space still left.

The thing of it is, both scotts and rogers live in real worlds, to wit:
scotts one of appetites and aggression and rogers, damn! rogers live in a perfect world, each and everyone one of them. ( …ok the paint drying exhibit will wait…how can rogers all live in perfect worlds?…huh?… ) Well, I’ll tell you.  Rogers perceive the world in terms of what is quantifiable, accountable, provable. That is why they make such good engineers, accountants and doctors and priests.  ( …hold on! I get the engineers and accountants, I will even give you the doctors…but priests? tell me how the representative of a religion is the same as an engineer… go ahead…I’m waiting… )

Here it goes…rogers believe in the quantifiable, the measurable.  They believe in tradition and history and the preservation of culture and… religion.  While not  scientifically provable as say engineering, (religion) is totally quantifiable.  For example…the Ten Commandments (not Six for the children and Fourteen for adults in business) Ten.  That is the quantifiable way to live a life.  And since “organised” religion is a part of all civil society, rogers are the ones who will be found in the position of Keeper of Rules, Dispenser of Wisdom.   ( …perfect world….rogers….the point?… ) Oh, yeah.
The point here is, the only way a person can maintain the fiction of a quantifiable world is to limit the world to quantifiable things and then forget that they set the limits!

Thats how rogers can live in a perfect world. ( …oh-kay….and this has to do with Pop Music…how?… )

rogers live in a quantifiable world, where all is understandable, all is predetermined.  clarks, on the other hand, live in a world that is unquantifiable.
clarks being the creative one of the three, allow for any and all possibilities, choosing to believe in anything and subsequently believing in nothing.
clarks can wake up one day and say, “Pop Music really kind of sucks.  A lot of people seem to like it though, I guess I better listen to it and acquire a taste for it”.
(scott: “wtf! that don’t make no sense at all, you don’t like then it is not likable! wtf!!). ( roger : “well I can tell you why you should like the likable things and as for the unlikeable things, well there just is no need for them…lets talk about me…)

The project has been successful.  I can listen to Pop Music with a sense of appreciation (“sense of appreciation”  what a clark!! ( roger and scott))

Well, thank you Miss Sullivan for your help in finding the topic of the day.

And to close, Mr. B!  Do you have some music that might illustrate the point here today?  (oh, sorry about the harsh reference to you and your by-now-totally-aging scottian-wife-who-must-be-so-not-liking losing her youthful powers).

* no, you’RE absolutely correct, we can’t resist using a cool word whenever possible. And, to the roger out there: as a matter of fact, we did look it up. We spend a lot of time with dictionaries and other reference sources, that’s have the fun (lol**)

** back in the days of today’s Reprint, we became aware of a certain skill-deficiency when it came to the writing. Being a clark (note: a clark possessed by an interestingly intense, pervasive, and good-thing-this-obsession-wasn’t-like-for-chocolate-or-jogging, drive to bring the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine to as many people as possible… anyway, one of the things we got a kick out of was making up words. (To our credit, they were in such a context that the Reader would figure out what we meant. To their credit, they laughed with good-natured enjoyment). Where were we? Back up to the initial asteroid.

Share

clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one

Comments

  1. Tedious is not a word i associate with you.

    All music has a quality to appreciate, including the work it takes to learn how to create it, just as all sports take work and skill and talent and some luck to master, and are therefore to be admired.

    The word you meant to use up there was probably “exegesis” not “exegeis”, and Brother-in-Law is very fond of Biblical exegesis and will discuss it ad infinitum on any occasion.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      darn you, cool-sounding, more-than-your-share-of-vowels words! lol

      funny I do tend to check in at Wiktionary and them… part of the fun, of course