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

Had an enjoyable conversation at the TwoG^Girlie yesterday. In the course of the conversation the subject of writing was touched upon, (to our purposes here) early writing. In demonstration of the benefits of using the Wakefield Doctrine as a tool of self-improving oneself, I did, in fact, raise my hand and said, “I use old posts every week!”

This is noteworthy as, for many of us, any early effort at developing a skill or art is often left in the attic. This tendency (for some of us) is unfortunate. Not because it deprives us of the opportunity for an easy Monday morning, postistically-speaking, but because the contrast between old and new, new and improved, better or worse is, from a Doctrine perspective, invaluable to the process of changing (for the better) how we relate ourselves to the world around us and the people who make it up.

The Doctrine would maintain that an honest appreciation of who we were is productive when we seek to become who we would be.

… but, didn’t we say this is RePrint Monday?!  Surely that’s why you’re all here, and so, we will not disappoint. (Lets see how far back in the Years of November we can go without stepping on any of our favorite end-of-the-month topics. (Hint: rhymes with Cranksgiving.)

(By way of a little lead in/commentary on this very, very early post. The term we use now is ‘Manifest’ in place of the use of ‘characteristic’ in the post below. The reason being to both reinforce and make clearer the idea that each of the three predominant worldviews: the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) and the Herd Member(rogers) represent certain realities and, as such, the things we do manifest in a characteristic manner, aka ‘the Everything Rule’*)

you tell me that it’s evolution, we all want to change the world

November 20, 2009

This promises to be a brief Post, as there is much activity ‘behind the scenes’ at the Doctrine.Had a Comment from an actual Reader! (Yeah, I know I should not sound so surprised), but there it was the other morning a readable if not slightly scottian Comment submitted by a ‘AlmostKatherine Hepburn’. While I never get tired of writing in the self-referential perspective of the Doctrine, I did get a kick out of reading something that was not written by any of us here (Progenitors and Downsprings).

Anyway, will be looking forward to contributions from Ms Hepburn going forward.

Speaking of contributions from Downsprings,  had an interesting and challenging discussion with Phyllis the other morning regarding rogers. For some distantly related reason Phyllis said that ‘rogers are mean’. Out of the context in which this sentence was made, this statement, ‘rogers are mean’ demanded consideration. For if a statement is true about one form, what does it tell us about the other two forms? So from that Phyllis’ single statement we jumped to the following:

rogers are mean, scotts are cruel and clarks are heartless

So, lets consider these statements.
We start with the premise, i.e. when one (of us) chooses to be unkind to another, what is the characteristic of the behavior relative to our type. (Or may I could just say, why are clarks heartless and scotts cruel and rogersmean, instead of say, clarks are cruel and rogers are heartless etc)

‘Rogers are mean’ because when they want to negatively affect someone, they do it within the context of the herd. They will gossip and talk among each other about the target (of this negativity). They will never go up to the target(person) and say ‘you are a slut’. Instead they will say to each other, ‘isn’t she such a slut’? It will be the group opinion that will constitute the negative effect. In other words, if an outsider comes on the scene and and needs information reagrding this person, the herd will make a point of offering an opinion.
(Now class, why is that so rogerian?)
(God, I so love to lecture)

The answer is, of course, because the effort to affect a non-herd member is always done among and within the herd. No single member (of the herd) could or would approach the ‘target person’ directly and certainly would not say anything to their face.

All right, then how about scotts? Why cruel instead of heartless or mean?
Because it is the nature of predators, to act alone. Granted scotts will gather in packs when the occasion rises, but for the most part they hunt alone. And when a scott is being ‘negative’ it is expressed in a manner that can only be called cruelty. Part of this is the result of the fact that scotts will act directly but impersonally. They enjoy the efforts of the prey to resist, hey that squirming and trying to get away is the damn relish. But its nothing personal, the scott is hungry and the prey is food. So in the case of scotts, this cruelty is the ‘way of nature’ cruelty.

Clarks? Heartless? No! Say it ain’t so!! If any Reader needs it explained, then you need to read the content in these Pages a bit more.

Well, lets end it at that.

Big news, though. Working on a Post with two, count ’em two guests. The last Post with roger helping out (panic in Detroit…) got rave reviews and feedback. So, if it is worth doing, it is worth over-doing.

Look for it end of this weekend/beginning of week coming.

Until then…..goodnight  Sloveniaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

*

1. the Everything Rule: ‘Everyone does everything at one time or another.’ There is nothing in the human realm that is exclusive of any of the three predominant worldviews. No magic ‘only a clark could do that‘ or ‘who but a scott would climb halfway out the front passenger side window while it was traveling through pedestrian-lined streets and ‘really, you feel that way about…!?!?!’ (lol) It comes down to: how would a certain thing/act/belief manifest in a certain reality