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

We had a story in mind, towards the end of last week, that felt like a good one to re-tell as part of whatever this Tuesday thing is trying to become. Unfortunately it’s been lost in the clutter of the daily effort to a) stay on the Path with Heart* and 2) be on the alert for the best inciting incident to push this project along.

We left ourselfs last week with the definition of ‘the Everything Rule’. This is, of course, the…

damn! just went back and reviewed the previous post. We’re tempted to re-take a narrative path that was here, in this post, before I sicc’d the back-delete cursor on the words.

Here’s a question: does writing a memoir (or history or biography or simply a story of a tool for better understanding the world around us) necessarily require… Wait. Stop. We answered our own question.

But what does survive, this (most recent) attempt to sabotage our effort to write the definitive book on the Wakefield Doctrine, is the use of the term ‘manifest’ in the context of the three predominant worldviews.

As an adjunct (or extension or some cool term of rhetoric) to the Everything Rule is the recognition that how a thing manifests in the reality of the Outsider (clark) or the world of the Predator (scott) or the life of the Herd Member (roger) is directly affected by the character of the person’s relationship with the world.

 

Enough. Time has run out for this Tuesday.

That said, permit us to take refuge in what constitutes one of the most important gifts we’ve received over the years. Specific to this week’s Memoir post is the insight that it is easier to edit than it is to write (on a blank page)*.

Remind us to do two things in next Tuesday’s post: a) go into why the Wakefield Doctrine is of use to clarks, as opposed to scotts and rogers, and 2) tell the story of ‘The Spot that Moved’.

 

 

* interesting that I feel a push-back on this idea from both my scottian and my rogerian aspects. each for a different ‘reason’. But we are exploring the concept of how things manifest differently in each of the three. Won’t attempt to go too deeply, but a scott would favor the illusion of energy inherent in a ‘single take’ and a roger would sow doubt about anything that wasn’t already an effective narrative.

 

 

[in the interest of not being short-sighted in the case of maintaining this effort to chronicle the development of the Wakefield Doctrine, here, in reverse order, are previous installments:

1. last time
2. the time before that (the inaugural post)

* a cool phrase borrowed from one of Carlos Castaneda’s books.