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

As to the thought, ‘What more is there to say about a theory of personality that has three types and is predicated on (one’s) relationship with the world around them?’

Not so much more information, as with better style. Rather than recitation of data, (an ongoing) demonstration of effects and consequences in the real world.

In other words, the actual topic of pretty much every Wakefield Doctrine post is on any given day, which at the moment would be Monday, we ask: how does this day of the week/that particular occupation/going to the gas station/trying to get ‘A’s in school or find love in a relationship, manifest in the reality of the Outsider (clarks), the world of the Predator (scotts) and the life of the Herd Member (rogers)?

This topic, i.e. reprint posts came up on the call-in show this weekend past. The Why and (the)  is it an irredeemable fault or, at least, a less than.

Our position was, in the context of RePrint Monday, was that it was like a prompt, a warm-up, if you will. Not to give away too much insight into the early years, gots to save something for the next installment of  our weekly series: ‘عمر خیّام Tuesdays’ * ¹ ‘Hey!!’ (Last week’s installment: Here)

Believe it or not, three hundred fity words in and we’s still gonna post a RePrint post.

Come back tomorrow! Subscribe or like or, better yet, tell someone you encounter in your day today to come here and read and such.

sun don’t shine, the gods look down in anger

December 3, 2009

(Well, oh kay… interesting note to start a Post on… but stranger things have happened in and about the Wakefield Doctrine)(…”this just in”…’clark…the seventies…were…thirty…plus…years ago’…stop…’please, stop’…)Hey Reader! Yeah you!
Do you believe that your (personal) history defines and (pre)determines your future or what? Is there such a thing as the momentum of habit. (The ‘momentum of habit’  is the notion that what we are is simply a more elaborate form of what we have always been.) (Cheery thought, no?)Well? Do you think it does?  (Don’t you dare touch that “Back” button.)
(in a fairly creepy, sudden shift to a calm tone…)Do me a favor, (After all, you know something about us here at the Doctrine because of the information we are throwing out into the world by way of this blog.)……Look back on your life. Try and recollect the things you have done, the places you have lived, the people you have known, since as far back as you can.
Now, erase the names of the people, delete the addresses of the locations and take off the labels of the things you have done (job title, education, religious designations). You can still remember your life, can’t you?
Even with names and labels removed/deleted/eliminated, you know that you have been alive, with a life that is yours and yours alone. You know, even without the names, you lived in one place (or many different places), you knew some people (or a lot of people) and you spent your waking time doing this (or doing that).
Your ‘life story’ runs from the first (and often sketchy) times you remember as a child through and right up to now.Pretty goddamn ‘straight’ line isn’t it?
(Come on roger, stop protesting. You what I mean. You are capable of this.)
Look at your life in terms of how many different interests and activities and ways of investing your time is evidenced. How different was your life when you were 7 years old compared to when you were 17 years old?(…or 27 or 77…)
(Yeah, yeah scott, I get the, ‘I gots the girlfriends/boyfriends, thing’ Does not matter. Lose the names, and they (still) are people you shared yourself and your time with, no different than a best friend in second grade or a spouse in middle age or the person in the bed next to yours in the nursing home.)
What I am trying to get across here is that the important thing  is not the names of the people, places and activities that comprise(s) your life.
Rather, I am asking you to consider the question, what did they (seem) to add to your life, why did you give them your time!?I want the Reader to consider their lives without the qualification/rationalization/justification that we all impose when we reflect on our lives.

… ‘he was a great friend, even though he was an asshole’… ‘I really liked spending time with her, but I had to because she was family’ … “of course we are happy together! We have beautiful children and a nice home’… ‘I know this is a boring job, but I will stick with it, because otherwise, what will I do?…’maybe I can still pray and maybe its not too late for me…”who will take care of me if I get sick?’…

(These little quotes barely  hint at the myriad of ways that we employ to make the fact that what constitutes ‘our lives’, the essential nature and character, if you will,  is the same today(as you read this blog) as it was on your very first day at school.)

So?
So what, what is wrong with that, at least I have a life that I can look at and say, ‘hey I’m not doing so bad’!

(You are correct, scott. roger you can come back in the room, we have stopped talking about life as if it were totally unpredictable and un-certain. We won’t talk about interchangeability any more.)

Well, that was fun, wasn’t it?  (Yes, I am seriously getting ready to close out this Post for today.) (No, I actually don’t have a more satisfying denouement for todays Post)

(writer leaves, house lights stay off…)

Alright, alright. Seeing that we have some new visitors (from Italy and Sweden and Ghana to name a few) and, of course, Sloveniaaa  is in da house!! I will try to impart or at least ‘duct tape’ some kind of coherent point to this Post.

If pressed, I would have to say the point of this (Post) is that our essential natures, (clarks, scotts and rogers), will determine how our lives are experienced and will force a consistency throughout the years (of our lives).
Having said that, I will remind everyone that the Wakefield Doctrine is predicated (yeah! he said predicated, he must be back from wherever…) on the idea that we all have the full range of potential, we are all (potentially) clarks and scotts and rogers.
And, despite how this Post reads, we always have the potential to feel, act, or think in the manner of the other two personality types. In fact, that really is the purpose of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).

*

* ¹ ‘Hey!! lol we apologize to any New Reader who might be a roger with a secondary clarklike aspect on a razor’s balance between getting mad and clicking away or staying to see this if Doctrine thing might not be kinda fun. The clarklike autosome that contains the code for ‘ain’t no reference too obscure that it can’t be fun! should never, ever be underestimated as to the effect it exerts in the life of an Outsider. (The reference to Ghiyāth al-Dīn Abū al-Fatḥ ʿUmar ibn Ibrāhīm Nīsābūrī** will pay off in future Tuesday posts.)

** lighten up… like you didn’t see that coming? we’re just messin’ with any rogers in the Readerverse***

*** damn right we’re claiming that word! Unless someone (most likely another clark) has already coined the term.