humor | the Wakefield Doctrine

I’d like Wakefield Doctrine for $500. please, Socrates

June 9, 2010 By clarkscottroger

This will be a simple, photo-filled Post today. Everything will be tied to some part of the overall theme (Jeopardy), which is both a game show and a modern manifestation of a basic human need to know things. I know what you are thinking, “oh shit, it’s about clarks again, when will he get back to talking about that funny one (scott) or that friendly one (roger)”. All in good time, but this blog here is here (in general) and this Post is here (specifically) because the Wakefield Doctrine is here and for various reasons there are people expressing an interest in learning more.

And as Alex Trebeck and Art Fleming before him would say, “if you do not phrase that as a question, then you are a total loser”.

Answer: I do not have the faintest clue.
Question: Why the hell are you writing about this?

Oh yeah, the original question was why is the socratic method. Yeah we get it so far, could be fun and cute, but the bearded, roger in the first photo…who the hell is he and why is he there? That, as my old, old Readers will immediately recognise is Sebastian Cabot, the quintessential roger from the films and TV of the 60’s and 70’s. He is there simply because he looked like Socrates. (ya gotta pronounce it So-crates, from Bill and Ted, anything else sounds silly).

Answer: More pictures and less words.
Question: Why are you still writing?

If I may return to the topic, which is the Wakefield Doctrine and in specific, why the question and answer approach. The only answer is that at present my ability to write as anything other than a clark is somewhat limited. I use the modifier “somewhat” simply because clarks do in fact believe that they are capable of doing virtually anything. This is not the kind of ego most of us would tend to think about, “I am the greatest (fill in the blank) in the world”. Rather it is a statement of the unlimited potential if you are always asking questions. blah, blah blah.

The Doctrine lesson is this: for each of the three (clarks, scotts and rogers) there is a characteristic quality”

What is the difference between a quality and a characteristic?
A quality is an ‘inherent or distinguishing characteristic, a property, or a personal trait’. Quality denotes the character, disposition, or nature of something. A characteristic is ‘a feature that helps distinguish a person or thing, a distinguishing mark or trait’. Quality is slightly more inclusive than characteristic. Characteristic’s meaning is more about a distinction.

(Thank you Mr. Dictionary. The above, btw is totally worthless and taking up space, which I suppose contradicts my characterization of it’s worthlessness as a quality.)

The Wakefield Doctrine actually is very straightfoward on this issue, it states: clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel. Everything else follows from that.

Hey! here’s a first for the Doctrine. I went looking for a music video and it was one that I already used. Now the rogers are beginning to gloat and the scotts are not paying attention….(hold on…insert hypersonic whistle here) now we have their attention…”no, scott this does not mean that I will be putting any fred eaglesmith in the Post”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn8g7ZXY3ak

“Its monstrosidous”! lol (…lol It’s a finger of speech.)

Audrey is so a clark.

…now Tim here an….tis….a pation!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bzkr6js-0s

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: humor, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine

it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory

June 8, 2010 By clarkscottroger

(uh, oh)…semi-obscure classical literature reference…never a good sign when it shows up at the start of a Post. Sort of like, the smell of gasoline when you have flooded the engine. (Age warning, suspect that it is not possible to “flood” the modern gasoline engine, what with fuel injection and all). Still ‘treading water’ here, waiting for a line or a thought or something to get me beyond the single phrase level of exposition.

( …hint from ‘soon-to-be-high-school-senior-imaginary-student’…just start typing…you can always throw it all on the ground… )
Good advice, as always from our Miss Sullivan.

Lets make this a Reader-participation Post. ( …yeah lol…as if… ) no, seriously. Today is Tuesday, it is a day that there are a good number of Readers stopping by to see what it going on at the Doctrine.

teen appeal

ok that gets us started but what about the twenty-somethings?

( …ok please stop now…get to the Doctrine Lesson of the Day…please…. )

Alright…is 7:30 have nothing but a hyper-developed ego (regarding these Posts) so I will Post this…with a promise to come back later in the day with something worthwhile…I am actually at the point that I seem to be able to do this…and this is, in fact, the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day.

With the conscientious application of the principles contained in the Wakefield Doctrine, anyone can alter their reality to a degree that is not possible with any other “self-help”, “self-empowerment” or any other of the hundreds of products/disciplines/training programs. If you are a (Reader) who would like to make fundamental changes to yourself and subsequently to your life, this is the place for you. Or, “petitio principii” which is not quite the proper phrase, but is further proof that you too can acquire the ego of the roger, which combined with the thoughtless aggressiveness of the scotts will let you totally leave behind your un-satisfactory but still all-consuming existence.

YEah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k816dPQyPAM

hey…the hell with any effort to go the high road…what else you got?

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: humor, Personal, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

and I ain’t done nothing since I woke up today

June 7, 2010 By clarkscottroger

(roger…roger…roger…)

When I got up this morning, my first thought was, as always, what am I going to write about for the day’s Post? And it seemed that the answer was, “hey since writing yesterday’s (“…the best to you each morning”) let’s talk about the benefit of ‘lightning up”. This would have recounted the struggle of recent days to come up with anything but how yesterday, after writing and publishing the Post, I went back in and added some fun, recollectational stuff. (The thing about eating Grape Nuts in a college dorm.) And it did seem like the way I was going to go today. But then I went in search of a subtitle….and that took me to Lyle (actually John Prine) and then the photos (above and on the home page) and that took me to rogers. So, I guess I do not have an easy to write morning….

Screw it, let’s stay a little human today. Hey, when you look back at your very early life, what do you recall being the first exhibition of being the type you are (clark, scott or roger)? I distinctly recall being 4 or 5 and being ‘tickled into submission’, you know the way that kids do that? Get an initial reaction and then follow through until you are sitting on top of your laughing so hard you victim and despite being begged to stop you continue the ticklation. I recall that after one of these “attacks” I decided that I would not be ticklish anymore. That simple. And I proceeded to do…something….not quite clear on the process, other than I seem to recall that it did not happen overnight, but eventually (and to this day) I was no longer ticklish. (Here is the clarklike part, I knew that what I was doing was something that “nobody can do that”. And in the process of becoming ‘non-ticklish’, others would comment along the same lines, “you can’t do that, no one can make themselves not be ticklish”.) Guess that is my first memory that I can see shows me as a clark. I suspect that this suggestion will have validity only to clarks, but I could be wrong. In fact, I suspect that I am wrong because as I have stated before, you Readers are not normal. By definition, you have an ability to see yourselves from a different perspective than does the general population. And this will be part of the challenge in bringing the Wakefield Doctrine to the world. Most people cannot, deliberately step back and see themselves. They think that the world they see and hear and react to is the same for everyone.
But… “you and I have been through that, and this not our fate” (to channel Bob a little).

Am resisting writing about rogers, as the two photos that showed up today (“accidentally iconic images, reporting for duty today, sir!) are clearly of rogers…btw, add actress Kathy Bates to your list of rogerian women. So I will go for the short Post and get right to the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day. And the lesson is not really a lesson, it is an observation. About the perspective of age. I have long spoken about how we all “lock into’ a certain age and stay there despite the steady advance of time. It is different for each of us and effectively it is the age of the person you expect to see when you walk down the street and see your reflection in a storefront window. (I have come across a blog, where the writer has come up with a description of this phenomenon way totally better than I have. He say, “What would you say your age is, if you forgot how old you were?” Damn. Says it perfectly).
Anyway, we all do that. Lock into a certain age, no matter how old we get. There is a long, metaphysical explanation (“hey Luuucyy, you got some splainnn“) that has to do with the idea that we all have a description inside ourselves of what the world should be, how life is supposed to turn out. It is not entirely conscious, and it is not entirely positive. But it is the sum of what we have been taught that life is all about. As in, “clark, when you grow up you will….” When we reach a point when all that follows is in our lives, we can then stop getting older, the wait is over. That is the age you lock in at.

So the Wakefield Doctrine lesson of the day comes from DownSpring#1 who asks in a Comment on the previous Post, (if I may paraphrase)…” it is a given that rogers live in a self-centered universe. Self-centered in the pure sense of the word, all things come back to the roger…all things (of value) issue from the roger.” (DS#1 goes on to ask)…”does the roger even know that this is an artificial arrangement or is it beyond comprehension (that the universe does not revolve around them?)”

I will offer my input and then open the floor to Comments. From phyllis (a roger) comes the explanation that, “rogers exist in a box that they have created and then manage to forget that they are the creator…it is a box so that it must by definition be the whole universe, but it is limited for the same reason. For the sake of ‘completeness’.”

“Eee doggies! Uncle Jed! That done loaded down the truck what making it scrape right on the ground!”

(Oh Meester Hanitor!!! we shore would be appreciatin some fine music, rat about now, dontcha know?)

(warning bootleg vid, have to listen to the scotts in the audience scream along…)

Hey…lets go with another Emmylou…

OK…Contest time….we know what John is (roger) and Lyle is (clark) so what the heck is Emmylou? (Hint: the Progenitor roger used to totally love her…)

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, humor, Personal, personality types, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

the best to you each morning!

June 6, 2010 By clarkscottroger

Sunday!!! SUNDAY!!!!SUNDAAAAAAYYYY!!!!!!!!!

Who doesn’t love Sunday? Damn, is that the tough question of the day? clarks! are the ones who don’t love Sunday. The question is so simple as to border on being insulting to you the Reader. And if I were you, I wouldn’t take that kind crap from anyone. (Actually that’s a lie, clarks do take that kind of crap from everyone. But today is not about clarks.)
btw… the cereal above? Grape Nuts? Very near inedible…I mean really, nothing more satisfying in the morning or evening if you are a college student, as I was in the memory that prompted using this photo. Grape Nuts was one of the “foods” of choice for Room 115 (Suite K Weber Dorm), because it required no special handling, protection, preservation or any other damn thing. Just sat in the box waiting patiently for a food-deprived, consciousness-altered college student to get hungry-desperate enough to try and eat them/it. And, when that time came, the fluid of choice was powdered “milk”. Really! God! Simply add any mind altering substance to the menu and the gustatory experience totally went where no digestive system was meant to go. And unless you had 52 molars the size of cue balls, (or those white-tree trunk looking teeth that you see in hippopotami in the movies just before they tip over the canoe with the girl but eat the poor native bearers instead of her, the hope of not being injured trying to “eat” or “chew” this “cereal” was as non-existent as were my chances of convincing Miss Ann to come across in my room using nothing more in terms of romantic accelerants than a bottle of cheap rose wine, (in the impact-resistant straw wrapped bottle). Before you could say, “Oh my god! I have broken all my teeth!”, she would be out the door and the totally tile-lined bathroom would echo with the sounds of those little grainy things ricocheting against the bathroom stall walls.
…god, to go back…lol)

Today’s Post is about the…..Wakefield Doctrine! As RRs* know, Saturday night is the night where I drive around the actual Wakefield with glenn and we discuss all things Doctrine. Topics included last weeks’ Posts, recent efforts to draw Studley UK out enough for (them) to submit a Comment, and the most interesting topic during the drive was a ‘rough sketch of a plan to make an effort to try to bring the Doctrine into a form suitable for direct (or semi-direct) application in the real world’. It just so happens that glenn, being in the “assisted self-help industry” may have a forum in which elements of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) can be “field tested”, on real “people”. I bet the Wakefield Doctrine gets more ‘real’ in the coming year. More than that will have to wait…stay tuned.

Anyway…regarding the future of this thing of ours, what I would tell you if you were here in person is this: more and more the efforts of this blog, in general and these Posts specifically will be to try to get more ‘conventional’, more mainstream-ready in terms of how we present the WD.
Hours have been spent debating the virtues of feeling/energy versus writing/presentation technique. In the final analysis, there really is no either/or, this thing will continue until it stops. It will be really cool when the Wakefield Doctrine gets the exposure that it merits, which in my humble opinion is to have at least 100 people know of the Wakefield Doctrine by the end of this Summer. And while it has been a policy here to not bother with “goals” and “mission statements” and other accouterments of the fame seeking, ‘men are from Mars and women (can-pretty-much-claim-to-be-from-wherever-they-want-as-long-as-they-pay-the-price-of- admission-to-my-Seminar)’ snake oil salesmen that you see on 30 minute infomercials and all during Pledge Week on Public TV.
(Look at the audience in those ‘self-empowerment’ seminar shows that you see on TV. Pretty much all scottian and rogerian women with the attached rogerian males, plus a smattering of clarks dotting the audiance. For reasons not yet clear, there are not many clarklike females to be found in the crowd at these events.

Since we appear to be on the topic of the audiences, the people willing to pay money to see some roger in a cashmere sweater stand on stage, projectile emoting and insisting that he feels their pain, these are the people we need to really understand. At least we do if we are serious about taking this thing on the road. The members of the audience at these events, they are, for the most part women. (Rogerian women predominately with a fair percentage of scottian women). Damn. There is a whole Post right there. This week for sure. Remind me.

…and since I am in a bit of a country thing, next up is Glenn Campbell and Jerry Reed (one is a scott and the other is a roger. you need to be able to know immediately which is which. If for any reason you cannot, write a Comment and I will be happy to help.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yYa1NJ7BuA

Now that I look at that clip, it gets me to thinking about the ‘comparison’, of scotts and rogers. I have a clip back in the pages that I will run bring out….hold on….(where the hell is that damn clip?)….ok look and I will talk about it on the other side. Once again, you had better not need me to tell you which is the roger and which is the scott…but what I want you to do is really see the “aggressiveness” or better to say manifestation of aggression as exhibited by the roger…it is quite distinctive and as seems to be the case, it is in the eyes…look on this…

*RR (Regular Readers)

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: humor, Personal, personality types, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

the moment came, as it comes to all

June 5, 2010 By clarkscottroger

(There are probably 2 other people in the whole damn werld who will not only recognise this location but will upon seeing it say, “Man, how long ago was that”!.)

Good Morning.

The Lesson of the Doctrine: it is not enough to simply be able to recognise a clark or a scott or a roger, in order to get the real benefit of the Wakefield Doctrineyou must accept that how the other person feels is genuine. You do not have to agree with or participate in what the other person seems to be perceiving reality-wise, you simply must accept the the clark, scott or roger that you are inter-acting with is experiencing the world in a way that is different from how you are experiencing it.

Thank you and have a very clarklike, scottian or rogerian day today.

For those who want to believe that more is more, yes, I mean you, roger; here is a clip from our FAQ page. I will bet that anyone reading this, who has been here more than 5 times, is now saying, “There’s a FAQ Page? Why didn’t anyone tell me!”

Oh, yeah, for you clarks out there, here are all the parentheses that I was going to use but decided not to.
(…), (…), (…), (…), (…), (…)

And just since we have not tried to give away a hat recently, a free hat for your damn head to anyone who can correctly put the parentheses in their proper place.

Shit, guess I need to provide more parentheses.
(…), (…), (…), (…)

Ok that should do it, I really had no idea that I was so parenthetical. So here is your FAQ page, presented for your convenience.
(…)

I think sometimes I am (a scott) then other times I must be (a clark). What’s up with that?
You’re a clark.

Hey, wait you can’t be that sure on the basis of one question!
Yes I can. (I’m a clark)

The question you should be asking is, ‘why does it seems that sometimes we are one form, other times others’. And the answer is that we have the potential of all three, we just get in the habit of seeing the world one characteristic way, i.e. clark, scott or roger.

Is there any scientific basis for the Wakefield Doctrine?
No. (see the ‘About’ page.)

When I read this site, it seems like there is really only one person writing. Can that possibly be true? What happened to the collaborative thing.
Nothing.

I thought this was a FAQ pages, I don’t see all that many Questions.
…I’m waiting for a question… ‘what part of ‘Frequently asked questions’ are you brainiacs missing? There would be useful information if some of you scottian adhd cases or you middle-of-the-herd rogerian mouth-breathers would conquer your fear of anything that doesn’t already have a DYNAMO brand embossed label stuck to this blog letting you know that it was within your admittedly limited range of initiative and realise that you would not be struck down by Jethro were you to actually reach out and turn on your computer and ask a question.

Will there ever be new FAQ questions?
Yes, yes there will.

I heard that you have been doing this for nearly a year, what have you learned about the Wakefield Doctrine that you did not know when you started?
Which part of your statement are you calling a question? Rather than wait for you to move your lips as your try to re-phrase the question, I will answer this way. The Wakefield Doctrine appears to have an appeal beyond my immediate circle of friends, in fact, it appears to have sufficient appeal to out-weigh my meager writing skills. By presenting the Doctrine in a blog, the virtue and value of this thing is put to the test. And it seems to be passing that test.
What a well-thought out question.

What?
Never mind, you would not get it. Other aspects that you would not get is that the Doctrine is proving itself to actually be an effective tool in aid of an effort to change life habits. (Given the unlikelihood of your comprehending this answer I will continue), and say that anyone reading this with a true desire to ‘change their life’* should read this blog and do whatever they must do to get actively involved in it. This includes, but is not limited to: writing Comments.

*Is it true that if I have to ask the question, I will perforce be unable to understand the question?
Yes.