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

While my electro-letter-hurler warms up and my fingers look up at the blank display like a 10 yo at their first sock hop, allow us to paste a Reprint.

…there.

Man! Look at the time! (lol)

It’s our ambition to spend more of the week’s Doctrine posts in discussion, illustration, demonstration and presentation of the principles of the Doctrine. This to include practical applications (of said principles) and the fun to be had by using it at school, work and home. As an additional perspective on the world around us, and the people how make it up, the Wakefield Doctrine is both fun and useful.

Recently, in the course of conversation about the past, present and future demographic of people benefitting from this here personality theory here, I was prompted to recall one of the first observations that came to us as people happened upon this blog and returned and stayed. (Serially, how cool was that? My grat-friends see it every week here, but the idea that the Wakefield Doctrine offers something good to people we would never otherwise met in person? muy coolitó)

Annyway what we realized then was that Readers who come here more than once are: clarks or scotts with a significant secondary clarklike aspect or rogers with a significant secondary clarklike aspect.

New Readers? The preceding sentence has some unavoidably advanced Doctrine concepts, but if you read enough posts, at a certain point, you’ll find yourself putting things together, even without the benefit of the ‘educational’ posts.

5 out of 234 people reading this Post won’t say, ‘wtf?!? the Wakefield Doctrine “because different things are fun at different times, ya know?”

February 20, 2014

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

Today’s Post is one of those Posts that are written for a couple of semi-different, not un-mutually reinforcing reasons. The two reasons are:

1. to continue our discussion that started in the Comments to yesterday’s Post, about whether the Seven Dwarfs, (in Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs), represented a scottian or rogerian or clarklike worldview. In addition, there were differing interpretations of the worldview represented by some of the other characters in this story (and in Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’)
2. to demonstrate the fact that disagreement and discussion with interpretation of  the worldview of  people (including fictional characters) is not only allowable, it is totally desirable… (this is prompted by Stephanie’sComment expressing concern how her disagreement with my conclusions might be met, in this, she is to applauded. I suspect many people have disagreed but few have had the temerity to say so…at least that was the case before last year, before the Doctrine acquired a more… astute, talented, headstrong bunch of Readers
3. …notice the ‘and’ in Item 2?  notice it’s underlined and everthing? totally serious there… we all learn by hearing from each other what we see as expressions of clark or scott or rogerian behavior, attitude, posture (physical and rhetorical), characteristics, but  the emphasis in on the sharing of impressions, understandings, interpretation and other things we see in people in the world, Doctrineistically-speaking, i.e. “I gotta go with scott, do you see how the appetite combines with a clear impersonal view of the humanity of the other characters” sense.

the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective, it’s a way we can choose to look at the world around us, the people and the things that they do. As a perspective, the Wakefield Doctrine does not have ‘An Answer’, it does not presume to say, ‘this is the nature of Man and Woman and Life and Such’.  No. It does not. What the Doctrine does say is, ‘hey you know what? If you can imagine that reality is not just the everyday, ordinary common sense thing, but that reality, at a certain level of experience, is…personal, then what if there were three kinds or styles of personal realities? And these personal realities are real, ya know? The three personal realities (lets call them worldviews, ok?) are:

1. the reality of the Outsider (in which you are different, and there is a gap between you and the world around you and there is an un-stated imperative that you not allow yourself to be identified as the different one and there is, an equally un-reconciled drive to distinguish yourself, to not be ”un-noticed’)
2. the world of the Predator  ( where each day is all that is real, that your appetite is your only certainty and while you strive to keep the civilized company of those you encounter at work or at school or even your own family, you are willing to surrender all in service of this need you have to dominate or take or bring into a personal relationship…a pack, if you will)
3. the life of the Herd Member (you don’t question any of this Doctrine, it makes sense to you, not by virtue of it’s accuracy in reflecting the inner world that you experience, rather you are coming to see the Doctrine as another form of ‘referential authority’, which is the foundation of your decision-making as you live your life to the best of your ability, to share in the knowledge of correct action is your highest goal, confident in the rightness and order behind the world as you see it)

And these are…real realities, not just a choice I might make one day, only to decide to do something different a week later. I grew up in the worldview, (personal reality), of the Outsider, for example. I did not decide in my 4 year old mind, ‘I think I will feel and act like I did not belong anywhere and everyone around me is different and I better not admit to any of this’…I so did not! The fact of the matter is, I found myself in a world in which I was, by the natural order of things, an Outsider. So I did my best. To deal with it and, more…way more importantly, I figured out how to best cope with the world I found myself in… as we say at the Doctrine, ‘I came to relate myself to the world around me as would an Outsider.’

Pretty simple, isn’t it?

Now, about those frickin dwarfs!

I’m likin scott for the character of the 7 Dwarfs because, as I relate to the story, they existed independently of the other characters, including Ms. White.  They were self-sufficiently and content to be Happy and (sometimes) Grumpy and (after a hard day’s work) Sleepy, (without a self-distorting drive to improve or educate themselves), Dopey and (with a unself-conscious acceptance of their own natural, animal natures allowing them to be free to give expression to urges and drives like se…) Sneezy and even if, made self-conscious by these urges, free to be Bashful  or …er  or  give in to a secret ambition to secure a higher level of formal education up to an including  earning a Doc(torate)

you know, as a group, the Seven Dwarfs represent the simple, here and now, eat, sleepy, ..etc life that is the foundation for the scottian worldview.

*