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

In a Comment on yesterday’s post, Frank, he say:

Thinking about “they feel and wonder if it’s real” made me think you would have to be a roger to know if a feeling were real or not.

To which we Reply’d

I was going to Reply:<em>They think… they act… they feel and wonder if it’s real</em>. In doing so bring home the fact that, even a clark is heir to all three characteristic personal realities despite being of only one world (as if seeing the others through a lens, clarkly*)

But on the surface, your Comment is certainly a helpful reminder of how, despite the fun metaphor and fantasy of this perspective, the essence of the concept of predominant worldviews (‘personality types’) is rather abstract. wait! lets continue this tomorrow…after all it’ll be Tuesday and Tuesdays are the mildest of day!

so what is it about Frank’s reference to how only rogers know the reality of feelings prompts a whole reply post?

At first blush, we concur. He is correct in the sense that, while clarks think and scotts act…rogers feel.

But when you get down to the simple thought, ‘what is that reality of the Herd Member actually like to experience?’ things get considerably more interesting.

Is the Herd Member’s world/reality a: Lifetime Movie of the Week 24/7? Or, maybe, more like kabuki theatre except with westernized settings and girls (off-stage references only!). On the other hands, perhaps it’s a Meister Eckart Afternoon Special… (today! ‘The All Spark (Scintilla Animae) Fact or Made-up stuff?”). all with Tea and Sympathy for a sound track or what…

Two things we need to say: a) the reality of the Herd Member is, first and foremost, non-rational. No, not insane or other DSM sanctioned disorder. Non-rational. It is a reality of emotion; and 2) in order to fully benefit from the Wakefield Doctrine one must be prepared to deal with imaginary concepts …at metaphorical arm’s length i.e. can you know what your dog (or cat or second cousin on your mother’s side) experiences? No. Can you imagine it? You better be able to. (Note: the examples of each of the three predominant worldviews we employ in this discussion is, of necessity, devoid of significant secondary or tertiary worldviews.)

By definition, you the Reader, are possessed of a significant secondary or tertiary aspect. For the scotts and rogers that means a secondary clarklike aspect. For the clark to get something from our little exercise this week it means a secondary scottian or rogerian aspect. Otherwise, you’d have stopped after reading: ‘At first blush…’ (note as a clark you’d smile at the archaically fun idiom, read the rest of the sentence and know that you can fill in the blanks on the rest of this personality theory later when you have more time.)

out of time

comments are invited

*