Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
damn!
we are such a clark. we totally missed what most would consider a reasonably-significant milestone in the world of blogging and post-writing and such.
Apparently our three thousandth post has been written and posted and without so much as a rogerian ‘Everyone keeps telling us how amazed they are at how many posts I’ve created here at the Doctrine.’ ‘and how wonderful everyone tells them they are… the posts, not the people. well, ok, the people. but they still like the posts. the ones that they read, mostly.”
that is so clarklike. (tho in our defense, we’re grateful for our significant secondary scottian aspect. ’cause, this post)
so, (remaining everybit a clark) what was the 1439th Post here at the Doctrine? (plus or minus, as is the inherent right of our people to, like, estimate… (no sense giving up all options by submitting to a determinant number, are we right?)
Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “the second best day of the week for school lunch (not hamburger fricassee, but close!)
January 10, 2017Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
(not everyone may know this, but that red building in Chicago? World Headquarters for the Omni Corporation… read all about in ‘Blogdominion‘
Lets discuss religion.
lol wait! come back! no, serially, I won’t say anything bad! Well, I’m only speaking for myself, my secondary scottian aspect hardly ever listens when I try to advise moderation. But, hey, what are ya gonna do?
For the sake of brevity and to leave me time this morning to work on the final edit of Chapter 40 of ‘Almira‘, following is a reprint (of a reprint) of a Post from a couple of years ago.
We say with complete authority/certainty/confidence that the Wakefield Doctrine never challenges or otherwise criticizes (an) individual’s religious beliefs, unless it forms the basis of a really good Post. But since you raised the question, lets look at what the Wakefield Doctrine tells us about religion and it’s appeal to each of the three personality types.
When it comes to religion and the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine, the answer boils down to two words: rogers! It is not just that rogers are the personality type that is drawn to religion, they are/is the one who invented it! The link between the rogerian personality type and religion is so strong as to form the foundation of the description of the rogerian worldview.
As we do know, it is integral to the rogerian worldview there be organised religion. This is true simply because rogers have the need not only to establish rules and order for everyone, but to have these rules posess a degree of moral imperative that can only derive from a deity or deities
Simply put, rogers are religious, clarks are spiritual and scotts… well, that’s kind of a long story… no! not a bad thing, it’s just that for scotts religion and spirituality are more about the features of the environment and therefore can be good or bad.
If rogers have the baseline lock on organised religion, where does that leave our other two personality types?
clarks?, they’re easy! clarks believe in the unbelievable. Unfortunately this capacity prevents them from ever having complete faith in anything. In regards to religious dogma, clarks will give convincing lip service, particularly the clarklike females (who have a slight edge over their male counterparts in terms of protective coloration); a clarklike female, especially one with a family unit, will conform to the local norms for religious activities. But the odds are, even these devoutly religious clarkmoms will be filling their downsprings heads with all sorts of apostolic nonsense at random points in their upbringing. If backed into a corner, most clarks will confess to a definite spiritual tropism, but you better have a thesaurus and a comfortable chair nearby! If you read the page on clarks, one of the primary characteristics of this type is the love of knowledge…useful knowledge…useless knowledge, knowledge for good and knowledge to anger people, does not matter to your typical clark. So as to organised religion, lets put the clarks in the woman’s auxiliary section.
scotts now, they totally relate to religion, even organised religion! scotts relate to the ‘product’/ the result/ the ‘output’, if you will, of organised religion. (Ed note: this section is written more to the male scott, though not inappropriate, as the Doctrine is gender neutral, it might leave a new Reader with the impression that all scotts will view religion simply as an opportunity, as opposed to a skill, which in the case of the female scott, it can be… I’ll leave the bullet-points in place, but check back for a Post on the scottian female and her pack.)
Back in my parent’s day, there was a ‘restaurant’ called The Automat, it was sort of cool for us suburban kids in the early 60’s to hear about a restaurant that was totally mechanised. (This was all pre-fast food as we know it today). The Automat’s ‘hook’, was to offer a variety of choices of foods to customers with no intermediary such a waiter or waitress, everything there was available and purely the choice of the hungry customers.
….Throughout history, organised religions have basically served as Automat for scotts.Aight… enough with the free-form, echolistic rambling.
Final thought this Tuesday: rogers provide structure, scotts push and clarks create…. all in the name of god.
*
Hey! World of Doctrine fiction insight: the red building at the top of the post? World HQ for the Omni Corp. the one that a certain Anya Claireaux operates from. (As executive administrative assistant, Not being one to put much in titles and honoraiae.)
