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

We were looking for a post that had ‘Labor Day’ in it’s title or content.

What the hell? Did not find one at all.

Who said ‘Everything Rule!!’

oh, man! New Readers You gettin’ good.

…almost too good.

yeah, invoking the ‘everyone does does everything, at one time or another’ aka the Everything Rule is a very helpful prompt. ’cause we can learn something about the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine and, therefore, about our ownselfs

…well, we’ll tell you.

clarks: their personal reality/the way they relate themselves to the world around them is that of the Outsider. That pretty much describes ’em. oh, more? well, here’s the thing about clarks, they know that everyone around them, from like, hey, four years old? (yeah, at that stage of life, no major influence there, right?) anyway they see that everyone apparently knows something that they can’t, for the life of them, understand. And this knowledge is manifested in this thing, a sense of belonging’ that becomes the brightest porch light to the neighborhood Insecta Lepidoptera. The young clark concludes they missed the class: ‘Growing Up Human 101’ (pre-Requisite: So, You’re Alive! Intro Social Realities 100) … Here’s the thing about Outsiders. They are painfully aware of being different. And they know that the most important thing (other than learning what they don’t know) is they need to hide it. So, clarks are precocious and intelligent and think the shit out of life. There is a curiosity driving them that is nothing like the mere, ‘
“Oh, my what a inquisitive child. This is a smart one. (better watch out, small human, we’re on to you and your pathetic disguise. Slip up once it’ll be your last. And… if you don’t, we have a little program for your kind called adolescence. We’ll get you then our little pretty.”
(lol)

Damn! Used up our time this morning.

Questions?

…yeah, here’s a RePrint

the Wakefield Doctrine ‘of old and new… perspective is all’

December 11, 2012

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

Today’s Post:

1. the simplest possible form of the Wakefield Doctrine
2. a Post from the Doctrine written in 2009

1) Suppose you knew what ‘the other person’ was thinking, would you feel good about (being able to know that) or would you not feel good? If you are the type of person who thinks that seeing things from the perspective of the other person, then the Wakefield Doctrine has much to offer. If you are a person who wants to have an edge when interacting with others in the course of a day, then you should know that the Doctrine gives a person an advantage and if you feel that knowing more about a person is better than knowing less, then despite your aversion to the novel and the outre’, the Wakefield Doctrine is something you should try to learn. The Doctrineoffers a perspective on human behavior that you will not find anywhere else. And you can’t get it wrong… if you can remember the characteristics of the 3 types and you can suspend your disbelief enough to be able to imagine that everyone is living out life in a slightly different reality… you are there.

2) as follows:

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, you know something about us here at the Doctrine…

…look back on your life. Try to remember and recall 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 (a job title, your 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, a life that is yours and yours alone.
You know, even without the names, that you lived in one place (or many different places), you knew a few people (or a lot of people) and you spent your days…doing this (or doing that).
Your ‘life story’ runs from the first (often vaguely recalled) times you remember as a child and continues, an un-broken line up through and right to the present moment.

Pretty goddamn ‘straight’ line isn’t it?

Look at your life in terms of how many different interests and activities and ways of investing your time that you have experienced. 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 from 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’, our essential nature and character,  is the same today, (as you read this Post), 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.  and someone please tell roger to come back into 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…)

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 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.

Which, in fact, really is the purpose of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).