clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 86 clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 86

Tuesday afternoon is never ending, Wednesday morning papers didn’t come, Thursday night your stockings needed mending

December 10, 2009 By

Hello again from the clarkside of the universe!

Interesting dynamic possibly getting established in these Posts,  i.e. more from the Progenitor roger which we are not reluctant to say is welcome news for many of our Readers and Visitors. While so far, relatively few in numbers, the Posts (from the roger) have a way about them that is enjoyable, different from the ‘always informative, frequently creatively amusing, but sometimes too much information’ from yours truly. (either the clark or the scott, can you guess which?)

Anyway, the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is nothing if it is not constantly shifting, changing and trying to evolve. So while most of the Posts will still come from the same source, already the beginnings of a ‘sense of conversation’ is making itself apparent. The beauty part (as a certain timeshare rep was often heard to say) is that the Doctrine is the Doctrine. Really quite simple once the basic premise is established. The challenge has been (and will continue to be) presenting it in a manner that allows people from all walks of life to understand, find application in their lives and have fun with it.

The Posts that involve others in the original Wakefield Doctrine group (you have seen the term Progenitors and Downsprings) have been well received, so expect to see more Posts that are built around interviews, even conversations among these people. The varied perspective and different contexts is most informative. (Yes, yes I know… not exactly rogerian in my writing style, lol.) Also, we have people joining the effort through the avenue of Comments and Replys who have been very helpful in our efforts to make the Wakefield Doctrine your one-stop blog for ‘the-simplest-way-to-understand-what-the-hell-the-people-around-you-are-trying-to-do!’

In fact ( to channel my inner gangsta…) lets chill and give some shout outs (‘Apesadumbrado mi dialecto de la cultura es poco una hoja de metal esta mañana.) to our Friends in the ‘sphere:   Mel at ‘the Spatula’ (http://spatulainthewilderness.com/) as far as consistent quality at a ridiculous ‘rate of production’ , Mel is the man;  Jason at Project: Enlightenment (http://projectenlightenment.wordpress.com/) I go there a lot and even make Comments. (Jason has a good sense of humor which is fortunate, as I have at times in order to illustrate the reasoning behind my Comment, (on a question of spirituallity no less, and used a reference to Helen Keller jokes. hehe).   And, of course,  ‘ronin (http://renaissanceronin.wordpress.com/) he has been a frequent contributor of Comments/Replies to Posts. (Not everyone gets ‘ronin’s take on things, but if there is a harder working blog guy out there, I haven’t met them.)

Oh, oh (cue: Horshack from ‘Welcome Back, Kotter); Do want to thank some (non-blog owners) for their contributions. AKH (aka Almost Katherine Hepburn) new to the Doctrine written some very insightful Comments, good shit. (I meant that in a complimentary, keep the Comments coming sort of way), and MJM who is a (new) voice from the rogerian side of the world.

(Have I filled up enough white space yet?)

The Doctrine? What can I say about the Doctrine that has not already been said?  Nothing comes to mind but I don’t think I can ever say it often enough:

We all start with the attributes of all three and by the time we are 5 years old  we are (predominantly) a clark or a scott or a roger. There are no gender differences in the Doctrine, only in how we as individuals express our natures, very much as there are cultural differences. But a scottian female is as much a ‘act first, think later, essentially predatory being as is a scottian male. And the same for the rogers and the clarks. Those of us here, reading this are not typical of our forms. Most rogers would not ‘get it’ (as with clarks and scott). What we share is a capacity to imagine beyond ourselves, we can allow that maybe we do not know the final definition of reality. But just about everyone who as ‘gotten’ the basic premise of the Doctrine, seem to get a kick out of seeing the clarks, scotts and rogers in (their) everyday world. And the expression: ‘he/she is such a roger‘ is getting heard more and more.

Almost forgot, we are working on a ‘test’ or survey for the Doctrine should be showing up in a week or so! Stay tuned.
(If the internet in general and blogs specifically are not all about surveys, then I am going to turn in my keyboard.) (I mean, really  “What kind of animal are You”, “Do you FIt IN”, “WHY do boys want to run me over with their cars all the time”…take our test and find out why!)

Also to any of our SL friends reading. (LOCAL CHAT: Hello  lol) Hi Jen and Kino and anyone else….and…wait for it…..So long for now Sloviniaannssss!!!

Share
Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,

ce qui sont elles jusqu’ici

December 8, 2009 By

Bienvenue à la doctrine de Wakefield (la théorie de clarks, de scotts et de rogers) we’ ; aller re obtenir international dans la maison ce soir. Regardez ainsi votre écran que nous allons établir une fois pour toutes comment totalement universel cette chose à nous est vraiment, yo

Ainsi, cher lecteur vous pourriez se demander ce qui continue, ‘ ; quelles sont ces fripouilles à la doctrine jusqu’ici ‘ ; ? vous n’êtes aucun doute demandant à votre propre individu. La réponse est : ‘ ; essai de la doctrine dans une autre langue, naturellement ! ‘ ; (Donnez-moi que W (la trame, aboient, trame) me donnent un H (la trame, aboient, trame) me donnent Y ! !) (ce qui est ce charme ? !) POURQUOI

(This just in….’according to reliable sources, most Readers and Visitors cannot, I repeat, cannot understand what the hell this Post is trying to accomplish.’) (Over…)

Bear with me, this started as a good idea and most of the time there is a way to make the “Good” “Idea” connect in a manner that does not alienate and piss off the audience.

(“I Know!, I Know!  Provide an easily accessible cultural marker!  oops  I mean…”)  ” ; Laisse la part un marqueur culturel commun et reconnaissable ! y’ ; all.’ ;

Qui doesn’ ; t savent la scène dans Pulp Fiction où Vincent et Jules récupèrent M. Marsailles’ ; cas d’attaché ?

Jetez un coup d’oeil à ceci…
 
 
Est-ce que tout le très d’une manière amusante, mais que ceci indique au sujet des clarks ou des scotts ou rogers que nous n’avons pas déjà su ? (Autre que l’un d’entre eux est le fuckin fou !)
 
En fait cela servira de question, le point, le ‘ ; Parcelle de terrain Device’ ; de ce poteau très impair ; lesquels des trois ancêtres seraient très probablement l’auteur de ce poteau particulier ?
 
(So, take it home Mr Author if you please!) (Is this thing on?)(Shit!)
 
Merci pour venir près. Identifiez correctement l’auteur probable du poteau de ths et gagnez un fichu prix fin ! !1
 
Ainsi jusqu’à la fois prochaine …… Bonne nuit Sloviniaannnnsss ! ! ! !
 
 
1)A damn fine hat is the prize, yo  (English versions only).
Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: ,

Later on, we’ll conspire As we dream by the fire To face unafraid, the plans that we’ve made

December 6, 2009 By

…I’ll bet you thought that ‘Winter Wonderland’ (music by Felix Bernard, and lyrics by Richard Smith) was just some old 40’s, ‘girls like this song’ kind of Xmas carole, now didn’t you?

As readers know by now, unlike our talented but under-producing Progenitor roger, when it comes to writing these Posts I have a certain set of conditions that I find essential in order to get the words to appear.  First and foremost is a subtitle that I ‘get something from’; a vibe, a laugh, could be anything but it (the subtitle) must make me stop and “Yeah, I like that!”. Once I have that, and hopefully the germ of a topic, the rest is grinding out the words.  Write and re-write.
And when it comes to sub-titles, I definitely have a soft spot for song lyrics. (Downspring Glenn and I were discussing this idea just last night.  We both agreed that any song that you remember, has an emotional charge. Good/bad, weak/strong, not mattering, it will always have something that gives you a little kick when you run the song through your head.  Something to do with music itself having  an affinity for emotional content.  Simply put, song lyrics are hard to disregard).
Which brings us to the current Post’s subtitle.
(Now, some of my musical references have been ‘constructively criticized’ as being limited by my age/taste (in music), and to the person who offered this constructive criticism (I channel Samuel Jackson to say) ” I hope you die and burn in Hell”.)
Yesterday morning I heard the Doctrine calling (‘…clark….time for another post…’). OK, not the worse thing to have to do.  At just about this time the weather forecast impinged on my consciousness with something about snow later.  All of a sudden the phrase ‘sleigh bells ring, can’t you (something something) them’ gets in my head.  And the music of course, the damn catchy music.

So, on to google and a quick search turned up the whole story, name of song, lyrics a damn mp3.  I played a brief clip of the song and that starts the mindworm, and its like, ‘goddamn lets write this thing so I can play some music I like and get the tune out of my head’.
So I scan the lyrics for the part about ‘the sleighbells’ and the line “Later on we’ll conspire” jumps out on the screen, and goes for my head, like one of those semi- chimpanzees that they use on TV shows (when the Producer wants ‘cute’ and but doesn’t want the risk that one of the actors might get their faces bitten off by the anthropomorphically bad tempered real chimps.)

(Then I read all of the lyrics. …. What have we here?)

This, (classic, hear it every damn Christmas, included in every Xmas music CD compilation set that Time-Warner or whoever else sells this shit to people on cable TV) song, ‘Winter Wonderland’ has very much got my attention.

The lyrics! Jesus Christ, the lyrics! (I am liking this Richard Smith guy, get weird much, Richard?) (lol)

(And just so you can have the damn song stuck in your head for a week, here is a link to a video of Winter Wonderland ).

Sleigh bells ring, are you listening, 
In the lane, snow is glistening
A beautiful sight,
We’re happy tonight.
Walking in a winter wonderland. (ok nothing strange, it is a fairly attractive image, sort of what we remember about the song.)

Gone away is the bluebird,
Here to stay is a new bird
He sings a love song,
As we go along,
Walking in a winter wonderland. (still safe, expanding the imagery including local fauna in order to stress seasonal climate changes, safe, safe.)

In the meadow we can build a snowman,
Then pretend that he is Parson Brown (?)

He’ll say: Are you married? (Who do you mean and who the fuck is Parson Brown?)
We’ll say: No man, 
But you can do the job
When you’re in town. (!? The ground is beginning to feel decidedly spongy…)

Later on, we’ll conspire,
As we dream by the fire
To face unafraid, 
The plans that we’ve made, (Yes! The plans tell about the Plans George…)
Walking in a winter wonderland.

In the meadow we can build a snowman,
And pretend that he’s a circus clown (No, there is absolutely nothing funny/charming/cute about a circus clown made of snow, standing alone, not moving…yet)
We’ll have lots of fun with mister snowman,
Until the other kids knock him down. (Other kids? How old is this person, I mean he is talking about marriage for Christs sake!)

When it snows, ain’t it thrilling,
Though your nose gets a chilling
We’ll frolic and play, the Eskimo way, (Yeah eat still warm animal flesh, kiss with our noses and give birth on an ice flo. Merry Christmas you weird-ass singing 27 going on 13 year old)
Walking in a winter wonderland.

 

So that you, the Reader doesn’t leave without learning a new thing about the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers), did you know that there were only 3 jobs in the whole world?  Well, there are and they are:

Scientist, Salesman and Machine Operator.

A Scientist is (for our purposes) the one who wants, no, make that needs to discover the unknown and upon discovery wants to share it with others. Clarks, it has been noted elsewhere are the creative one of the three, creative in the purest sense of the word.

A Salesman is the one who wants to change others, to get them to conform to his/her will.  A scott will get others to do things just because if she is the one directing others then no one is directing her.

A Machine Operator is a person who believes that the only tasks worth doing is the one with a defined set of variables, anything from engineer to accountant to musician.  Rogers tend to be the most excellent of musicians from a technical standpoint. (If you had a band comprised of a clark, a scott and a roger, the scott would be the ‘front man/woman’, the roger would play lead and the clark would play rhythm (but also be the main songwriter).

So get out there and look around.  What do you like to do for work or for fun? I guarantee that whatever it is, it will fit into one of these three jobs and more than likely it will correspond to whatever it is you are (clark or scott or roger).

(I have to go now, there is a circus clown with coal for eyes and a carrot for a nose on my front lawn and I think he is upset.)

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,

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

December 3, 2009 By

(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).

So, if this Post doesn’t get the Progenitor roger to write another comfortable and enjoyable reading Post, I don’t know what will.

For now….goodnight Slovinaaannssss!!!!!!!!!

(And a virtual shoutout to jen and kino and our other new friends from sl y’all come back now, hear?)

Share
Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,

can you say ‘Doc trine?…sure, I knew you could

November 30, 2009 By

(“…jeez he was being such a roger“)

(“we’re not being too scottian, are we?”)

(“…it really is a simple decision, how clarklike are you going to be about this?”)

You might be thinking out loud, or mis-overhearing a passing conversation, but it is hard to deny that the world we find ourselves in today (and then again, maybe tomorrow) is so very easy to alter.  And when I say alter, I don’t mean it in the ‘to try and make other people do things differently’ way, and I am not suggesting that we would instruct the people we work with and play with to behave in an unfamiliar manner and I most assuredly do not mean that we should take our friends aside and tell them that there are certain things we want them to do differently from now on…

(Secret-Sharing time now), everyone is trying to change the world. All the time and everywhere,  people are inviting us to join them in decorating (and re-decorating) the world according to their tastes.  What is funny is that even though a statement like the one just made, if manifested in a different circumstance, say, for instance,  a shopper waiting in a checkout line, grabs the microphone and  announces to everyone in the local supermarket, that the world was changing, and they were the agency, now that that would be strange.  What really should be considered odd is how you can read this Post and be thinking. ‘OK, interesting idea, I wonder where they are going with this alter the world thing.’

(“the herd is restless, the gossip is rampant, how rogerian can an office break room be?”)

We are born and (most of us) raised by others, others who help us through the world until we are able to survive alone. No one would reject the notion that, as we are taught to live and act in the world, we are also taught what the world is like.  (Nothing  aluminum foil hat-wearing  crazy),  just:  “listen to your mother… when I was your age, I had to go without all the things you take for granted”;
                                                          “no hold my hand when we cross the street, look both ways…if anyone stops the car and offers you a ride…”;          “if you are too sick to go to school, you are too sick to go out and play in the afternoon…study because to get into college you will need good grades…how can you expect to get a good job if you don’t have good education”

And it is not just telling us what the world is like, no, they are telling us what people are like:     “never talk to strangers… the early immigrants worked really hard to establish themselves… what kind of accent is that?”
                                  “a nice girl simply does not act like that… first impressions are the most important thing…respect your elders…honor you father”
                                            “do unto others as you would have them do unto you…early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise…when a man loves a woman…”

Most importantly, those who teach us about the world tell us about ourselves:    “don’t put that in your mouth, you don’t know where it has been…you are so much like your father…don’t feel bad when people say you look like me”;
                       “you will never amount to anything…how can you do that, after all we have done for you…if you don’t respect yourself  how do you expect others to respect you…a good wife’s first duty is to the family”
                                        “don’t be afraid…god loves you…you can’t believe everything you see and hear”

And so we practise living in the world and the more we practice, the more our beliefs are reinforced and the more ‘unchangeable’ everything becomes.

Here at the Wakefield Doctrine we say:   “hey you know how rogerian the spirit of organised religion is?… be careful young lady, you know how scotts can be, he is after only one thing…hey, if you have insomnia, you can always hang out with that clarklike friend of yours…that roger is such a girl”

Altering the world is not really such a radical concept. Simply a matter of adding to your description of the world. A language, a way of seeing what is already there in a new and better way… that is what the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers really is, a view of the world that we can benefit from. (Sure thing,    clark).

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »