humor | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 12 humor | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 12

this one, this will be the Post that sets this thing off…yeah, right

June 4, 2010 By

 “Damn you! You little prying Pandora! You little demon! Is this what you wanted to see? Curse you! You little lying Delilah! You little *viper*! Now you cannot ever be free! Damn you! Curse you”

Its not that I write this for the number of visits that it generates, its not even that I write this to see how many Comments it might generate. I seem to be writing this because not writing it feels worse than writing (a new Post each and every damn day). Of course, that begs the question 1, “well, no one is standing pointing a gun to your head, binyon 2, why are you putting yourself through this (each day)” and as a follow up, “can you answer the question in the context in which the Wakefield Doctrine itself is a principle factor?”  (Well, since you ask so nicely), “Yes, yes I can”. 3

Funny you should ask 4I was speaking to DownSpring #1 yesterday about the Post specifically and the Doctrine generally and we got on the topic of why this thing is still here. And what use it is or should be. About yesterday’s Post we both agreed that it was most excellent but I added (as the author) that I am still going way easy on the clarks. Given that clarks are the only one of the three likely to get any benefit from this blog, at least at this stage of the game and even with them I am ‘going easy’ in terms of describing the true nature of the clarklike personality. The other two, they are just along for the free food and diversion this blog provides.

So, to answer the question of why? There is only one answer, I am doing this because writing this blog has pushed me outside of my clarklike nature and I don’t seem to want to go back (to the way of being clarklike that I have spent my life, up to the point I hit Publish,nearly a year ago).5 Anyway it seems to have to do with realising that the Wakefield Doctrine, at least in the application that you see in this blog has altered me sufficiently to keep me writing these Posts. There may come a time when the benefit no longer outweighs the cost…or the….6 Damn, sorry way indulging…

So the topic for today’s Post is….

Why bother writing this thing and (by extension) why should anyone (else) both reading this thing.

1 …lol this is going to be fun, he is asking rhetorical questions…
2…for all you Readers who are a) not real, real old; b) did not have a psych major for a friend in college and c) did not have a psych major friend in college who was also a total clark, the word binyon comes from a really, really strange supplement to an abnormal psych textbook and it was a square plastic record (??!!) that purported to be a recording of several therapy sessions involving a woman being treated for paranoia. In the course of this “recording” the woman refers to the interviewer as “binyon”. So much more about this woman to follow…
3..the author claims to have “made-up” this expression….yeah right and I’m a fictional High School student, as if (I made that up lol)
4…sorry, don’t get the funny part 
5…clearly hasn’t affect his taste for the use and abuse of parentheses
6…excuse me, pardon me…I believe the phase you are looking for is…blah, blah, blah…lol

Start out the morning with an idea that just seems to have what it takes to be a Post and at a point, one  that is seen only in retrospect, lose it. “It” being whatever the hell it is that convinces me to keep typing. That point in the above crossed-out/blockquotes section, would appear to be the “funny you should ask” line.
Actually the point of ‘losing it’ was when I decided to go for ‘superscript’ and to have Janie handle the ‘asides’. (superscript are those little term paper looking numbers). But its funny about Janie, for all of  her being a  ‘literary device’,  if she doesn’t really want to comment, then no matter what I write, it falls totally flat. (Which is crazy, as you are no doubt saying to yourself, “if he can’t write for Janie, then who the heck can? And why wouldn’t she get into the spirit of things? …hey….wait a minute! you think I’m a clark, don’t you!!)

Anyway. I am an hour behind. I still have to write something that I am willing to hit Publish on. And the photos, they gave me trouble today too! The photos have become one of the really fun parts of the Post writing. Mostly because there is a surprise factor for me. I pick a bunch of photos before and as I write the Post and then insert them, sometimes in the beginning, but most of the time at the end. The surprise comes when I look at the finished Post, amazing but the choice of photos have a sub-conscious choice element to it. Fun.

Still not getting this thing done. Well, it’s Friday and most of you will just stop in to take a quick look, not really in the mood for a though-provoking Post. (Thats more for the middle of the week, at work where I suspect most of you are when you come here…slackers). Anyway I will put a video in here that I came across last night. (Actually I will put two in, the one from last night and something I will find in a minute. That’s the thing about writing Posts, it has to be contemporaneous. I have yet to write a decent Post “ahead of time”. So much for cranking out a bunch and putting them up each day.)

So from the striked-through debris above, we have established: 

  • it is often difficult to write these things
  • that the Wakefield Doctrine is the central point of all Posts
  • sometimes I will use anything as the central idea of a Post
  • getting tricky with superscripts doesn’t always payoff
  • even my own fictional characters don’t always ‘co-operate
  • as much as photos are fun, they can fall flat
  • and finally bullet lists can only fill a certain amount of space and you still have to write something worth reading

So, the Wakefield Doctrine lesson today is this: if you are a clark, my continuing to write these things day after day is proof that the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is an effective tool/technique/whatever you want to call it, it is a way you can change about yourself whatever it is you think you want to change (don’t worry, the clarks know exactly what I mean).
As to the scotts and rogers, this blog will continue to have a new Post everyday, at least until the Firstaversary of the Wakefield Doctrine. After that, we’ll see. But in the meantime you can count on coming here each day and on occasion reading something that you would not have heard or read anywhere else in your life and you will be glad that you did. (Eventually, if you keep reading this thing, you will start to use the tools it offers).

And besides, all scotts love to steal stuff from clarks and take it to the world and get credit for being so creative…like the un-mistakeable sound of live music in the distance. You don’t have to recognise the song, you just know the sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tIYpvlQP_s

Now for today’s music video  ( …lol most of them will not get it… )

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

don’t worry, nothing nearly as strange/cool/frickin great as you think

June 3, 2010 By

 

 

Let me start by saying “whether due to cultural dislocation or totally subliminal deviancy, my personal opinion is that most of (Rockwell’s) paintings come across banal at best, creepy at worst”. (This is the cue for the rogerian art fans to start howling, in their bovine basso profundo voices, the chorus being…”but it shows what we once were”)

Sure, roger, take your wasn’t it wonderful past and your family history and your abused children and your paedofilic authority figures and tell us why you love them all so very much.  Sure roger, the predators were for the most part scotts, at least the obvious ones.  Sure the past was a great time…if you had power. But as the adage goes, “history is written by the victors” and this is so much truer for the cultural winners and losers as it was for the military/political adversaries.

So, what’s the deal with the photos today?  Well first I do want to thank our dead artist for the loanation of copies of his quote art unquote.  I really don’t know what set this off in today’s Post.  The ‘Lead’ photo was the most difficult, I kept coming back to it.  Looking through all the Rockwell I could find in the searching for a photo that would show all three of us (clarks, scotts and rogers), was not having much luck.  But the photo I am starting with has something so damn clarklike to it that I decided to use it. (The fact of the process was: “I do not know how I can incorporate this into the Post in any logical way, but I have to use it”) Hey, call it the vanity of the author.

Show of hands people, the Lead photo who does not see a clark? (hey clarks!! come out from under the bed! lol no one is going to say anything bad here, come on, join the “conversation” lol).  Let’s just rorschach this one and move on to the main photo.  This is the photo you see when you click on the read more link, the one on this page, knuckleheads.
Now we can get down to Doctrine business.  We have a photo that contains 2 scotts a roger and a clark. (and not too much abuse or predation, either!)

(Now I know you are all capable of making allowances for culturally anachronistic features) so, what do you see in the picture above?

Screw that…What do you see here?

  Yeah, another damn clark.

(I cannot tell you what the deal is with the clarks today.  Really, no games, not holding out for dramatic purpose, just don’t know.  Let’s just call it the horrifyingly familiar tint of fear that is the hallmark of clarks, it is jumping out at me in this, quote art unquote.)

…if clarks are to be the topic of today’s Post, let’s have at it.
Maybe it has been the Rockwell art overload, but I keep getting drawn back to the idea of what a culture does to encourage children to stay on whatever path they have ended up on i.e. being a clark/scott/roger.
(If we had Wakefield Doctrine study guides, this would be highlit in yellow with a EXAM QUESTION mark next to it)

…as the Doctrine tells us, we all start life with the qualities of all three (clarks, scotts and rogers) and for reasons beyond the scope of this explanation we become mostly one of the three. This usually occurs at an early age, say  3 to 5 years old and we settle into experiencing the reality of the one we picked. (except for clarks).

So what is the deal with clarks and their strangeness?  Well it’s real damn simple, clarks are the outsiders, the blue monkeys, the strange ones.  In a school yard they will be the last to be picked for team sports and in the gymnasium they be the last to be asked to dance.  I can hear our rogerian Readers now (I’m talking to you, MJM) I can hear them saying in a voice that is meant to be caring and helpful but is, in fact, strident and insisting, “If only you would dress a little nicer, why do you have to wear that, you really are an attractive, nice person but you put people off…why do you keep doing that to yourself”?

(Today’s Post  has now officially careened right the fuck out of control.  I will no long be responsible for syntax, logic, reasonable conclusion or making sense to anyone other than our clarklike readers…)

So clarks are the outsiders but they are also the creative ones.  While rogers may build (being engineers and all) clarks create the ideas that they will bring to the world.  And while scotts are the leaders, they always,  (Did I say ALWAYS? ) (you know I did mean to say Always) scotts have clarks standing out of sight, off to stage left, telling them things about their audience/followers/mob that the scott will then pronounce and shape into power.

(What time is it?!!)

“You’re such a lovely audience, we’d like to take you home with us”

Hell, let’s have that for our music vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5gaIXI2Mn4

This a Post that made no sense at all? Ask a clark to explain it to you, there is one nearby…you just haven’t had the time to bother with them…go ahead ask them, they will explain this all to you, but you roger will get annoyed when it becomes obvious that it does not center on you  and you, scott will get bored ’cause it doesn’t have loud explosions in it.

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

catchy/intriguing subtitle goes, here

June 2, 2010 By

We have been on a run of ‘practical’ Posts for the last few days, let’s see if we can keep it going. ( …oh boy!…I’ll go hold the door…no sense having people getting  hit on their way out… ).
Yes, I am apparently going to use the ‘virtual high school student’ device today, any of you have a problem with that?  No one is making you read this and you have no opinion as evidenced by the nearly pristine Comments section below, so shut your pieholes.
I will write us a fairly short Post today, all I need to do is make it until June 26, 2010.  And, no I am not going to do the pseudo-mysterious, “what could be the significance of that date”? kind of obvious schtick.  Genuinely not caring this am.  It is the day of the first Post of this thing, this Wakefield Doctrine.   All of you are (just about), (let’s make that ‘…22 days short of…’) 12 months closer to being dead.  As in dying.  As in your life span is decreasing at a steady and reliable rate of 24 hours every day.
(Hey try this little mind game that clarks have all used, think back to a June day in 1990.  What were you doing?  Do you remember how you felt, the plans you had for the future?  I mean the real, long term, ‘well-we-don’t-have-to-do-anything-today-about-it’ plans.  You know the kind of plans you discussed with friends after coming home from your job (the one that was not really your real job), you talked about what you would be doing soon… ok so there you are/were and here you are today…Wednesday June 2, 2010 a whole new decade in a whole new century.  Did you think you would be here/now/doing this?  And if you can, now imagine sitting here…10 years from now…(this is the clarklike part, hey! someone call the scotts back and tell the rogers they can open their eyes now). All done.

What’s the deal with Robert Deniro being such a clark?  (For the record, with actors and performers it must be taken into consideration that the character being portrayed is just that, a character.  But when the same character (in the Doctrine sense of the word) comes back again and again, sorry folks, gotta call it as I see it.  DeNiro in Taxi Driver:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSuylzFZXb4

And just in case you are new (to the Doctrine) or a little on the dense side…here is a another ‘side-by-side’ with a clark and a scott:

That should do for today, seeing ‘the look’ come over most of your faces.  Time to wrap this Post up and toss the kibble to the scotts and let you get on with your “day” (remember…”one day closer to…” as Mr Floyd be sayin).

The Wakefield Doctrine lesson.  Real damn simple, Deniro is a clark.  Not only that, but he totally demonstrates/illustrates what it is to be a clark (in the Taxi Driver clip).  Jesus Christ people, he is rehearsing being crazy.  Does anyone of you Readers know why (and can effectively express why) this proves that clarks are dominant over scotts and rogers?  ( …me! I know!! I know!!… )
Sorry Miss Sullivan, these “Readers” have to step up at some point in the process.  The information is here, the lesson is here, the secret of the damn universe is here.  You can lead clarks, scotts and rogers to water but… ( …but the clarks will look around for a trap and not want to appear to be thirsty, the scotts will claim it and use it to trade for sexual favors and food and the rogers will create organised religion! lol!!!… )
Very good, Janie you have provided these silent schmoos with the correct answer.

Alright. Mr. B, if you will?

err, Meester hanitor, Meester hanitor I theenk that las song she over 10 minutes long…those poor, poor scotts…dey started chasing their tales at about 1:55 into the song. watcho got for dem? something bouncy eh?

…a little tough to see, but audio not bad…wtf I go to all this trouble to bloglift ( clark-coined 2010), a video and the least they can do is provide better production values…I don’t know why I bother sometimes…

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

rats! one of the serious, thoughtful Posts

May 30, 2010 By

 

Yeah, one of the non:clever/catchy/interesting/where-did-that-come-from Posts. Still under the impression that it is better to crank out one of these each day than it is to not. At least until it becomes apparent to me what I need to do next to continue on my effort to bring the Wakefield Doctrine to the werld (that spelling, inside joke referencing ‘the Lady’, want to know more, ya gotta ask).

In any event, I thought given it is a Sunday morning, this might be a good time to take a look at how things are going here at the Doctrine. Speaking of ‘going’, Saturday night is the “traditional drive around Wakefield” night,  when DownSpring glenn and I drive around Wakefield.  We do this thing and in the course of (this) hour long drive we review recent Posts, discuss and argue reactions to them, elucidate and discover and generally try to advance the body of knowledge that comprises the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. Last night’s conversation began with the notion of how limited the sample base is for the Wakefield Doctrine, i.e. that everything we ‘can prove’ about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers  is based on a statistical sample that might be short the number (of test subjects) usually required by institutions of higher learning.
As glenn put it, “hey this thing is un-deniable but the sample is a max 25 people, ain’t nowhere near enough”, to which I replied, “yeah, this is true, fuck ’em”. I went on further to clarify my point, “…glenn, lil buddy, we know this is Doctrine thang be true, we see it everywhere we look, fortunately we are not trying to convince a publisher or a Phd thesis review panel that the Wakefield Doctrine is valid and efficacious, so for now it does not matter”. (To which glenn replied, “yeah, you’re right, fuck ’em”.)

Allow me to apologise for the crudeness of the language, but I feel that benefit of a verbatim accounting of the conversation far outweighs the cost of a few offended Readers (sorry MJM). If you are going to hang with the Progenitors and DownSprings and witness the creation of a “unique, productive and fun way to understand the behavior of those around us”, then it will get a little rough at times. (insert the really obvious joke here). It is just that this is how the Wakefield Doctrine is developing, at least in the context of the work I do with a scottian DownSpring. Of couse, the conversations I may have with a roger will be of a different tone, entirely. More words, less swearing. Its all good, to use the totally over-used expression. (…where was I?)
So we moved from the discussion of the too small test subject pool on to practical application of the Doctrine. This is where it got genuinely exciting. As often happens during these drives, the discussion will meander, much as does the car we are in, but an interesting topic will appear and we are all over it. ( Authors note: My problem has been recording (these conversations) so that they can be shared with the rest of the group. But am doing the best I can, if there is a writer in the house who knows how to take this alarmingly fast fast growing pile of words and organise them in a way that a normal person can benefit by, let me know. Heck, there might be a hat (for your damn head) in it for you). 
But I was about to relate the cool thing. The practical app. Anyway, we were talking about how what seems reasonable to one person appears insane to another, yet both people are otherwise very much alike. The example glenn used was himself and another person in his industry (i.e. snake oil sales and marketing), glenn said, “my friend steve is always starting new ventures and businesses. He sees an opportunity and without hesitation will leave an established position just for the chance to create a new business. I could no more leave my salaried position for a startup than I could jump out of the car at this moment”. (glenn went on), “people I work with will act puzzled about this and ask why I can’t take a chance when I have so much going for me in the business”. The question resonated, the notion that you can have two people similar in all regards but one will risk everything for a future benefit and the other cannot bring themselves to go outside the security of what they have worked for in their careers. (The Doctrine provided the answer.)
I replied to glenn, “hey the Doctrine has the answer, it can explain, in a way that has not occurred to anyone, the difference between you and Steve” (I stopped talking, going for the ‘close’, you know  the first person who talks buys it’)…a moment went by, we drove on through Wakefield… finally glenn capitulated. (Actually what he said was, “fuck you”)….more silence…”alright what does the Doctrine have to offer in this situation?”

The answer was this: the comparison between glenn and Steve and their relative tolerance for risk taking was reduced to the question to glenn, “why can’t you imagine taking a chance on such a reward” to which glenn would have responded, “I can’t because….” The Wakefield Doctrine view would substitue the “I don’t take those chances”  for  “I can’t take those chances”. The difference is huge. I will leave it to our Readers to reflect upon the implication of the difference between the two ways of expressing the question. Any questions, comments or contributions to the discussion will be welcome. (I am getting bored, and I’m the one writing this stuff!!)

So, that completes the serious portion of our little Sunday Post. There will be music at the close of this thing and (hopefully a clever and/or funny photo on the front).

Thanks for coming by…..

(jeez, I thought that would never end!…. ( lol  and you were saying…something about the virtual high school student “being contrived” and getting old?…tell us all at Mill Fill High about how to keep the Reader captivated…hey Britney! you can’t dress like that!!! this is a GP rated blog!…) alright…I apologise for saying that…damn doing that apology thing way too much today…holiday weekend? oh man…this wis going to last foreever…)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbSugn0dB4c

Hey, excellent vid!  have not heard Zepplin that good (at least live) and it is just fun to watch Jimmy Page. Hey glenn, you will have to read tomorrow’s Post cause I came across some Speedy West videos that I think I will use,  if I remember.

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

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves

May 29, 2010 By

 

Alright.  This is the topic for today: ” OK Mr/Ms. Wakefield Doctrine, I get the premise, so what do I do next?”

I’m glad you asked…

The first and most important thing to do is take what you know and look around you.  Don’t worry so much about which of the three (clark or scott or roger) you are, rather look at the people in your life and see which they are.  There are two good reasons for this approach; 1) first you will realise (after the second or third ‘identification’) that, “holy smoke! there are such things as clarks, scotts and rogers” , and b) seeing others exhibit the characteristics of the types will make it easier to know which of the three you are!
(It totally bears repeating one of the most basic of the premiseses…we are all born with the capacity to experience the world as a clark or a scott or a roger. The idea is that we get into the habit of seeing it (the world) as one (type as opposed to the other two) that we become either a clark or a scott or a roger.  It is quite normal at this point of learning the Wakefield Doctrine to say : “Hey! Mr/Ms Doctrine person/thingie, sometimes I am a roger and sometimes I am a scott…(I don’t think I am a clark…at least I hope not), what’s up with that?” )
The answer is, “don’t worry about it at this stage, you cannot do this Doctrine thing wrong.  As long as you look for the characteristic view of the world of the others, eventually your own predilection will become undeniable”.  And besides, you are all three (..roger…), haven’t you been paying attention to all of this? (“But then you know how animals with ears like yours…”) Oh sorry, wandered off for a second.  That quote?  Ask me another time, you are so not ready for the Lady, someday when the time is right I will tell you about her.
So the point is, you can’t break anything and the chances are at this stage you are the only person you know that is aware of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers.  Take your time, get comfortable with identifying others and  your own nature will eventually become obvious.  Actually your own nature is already obvious, the scottian reader will have already looked around and if in the right situation will be braying to all around them “hey you are such scottish person, this guy says you are and he so funny…” OK, calm down. I promise you that if you defer immediate gratification and really learn the Doctrine (yeah, right scott) it will be much more useful to you…. (ok, how about this: HEY!! HEy! hey scott, hold off for a while and not only will you get more rogers than you can eat, but you will also learn how to handle those weird clarks…you know the people who act like food most of the time, they don’t fight back…most of the time, kinda interesting but  you never really know where you stand with them…stay with us here at the Wakefield Doctrine and you will be the biggest, baddest scott theys ever seen.)
…I promise…now…sit……goood scott.

Sorry, back on topic now. (Those scotts do demand attention, lol). As I was saying, “don’t worry, no rush, you will understand this Doctrine thing all in good time. We have all been where you are and will be here when you are ready to take the next step.

So a quick review of primary characteristics of clarks and scotts and rogers.

clarks: quiet, tend to mumble and are on the “brainy” side (not geeks who tend to be rogers) but clarks are the ones who are living in their own heads.  If you want to know about anything that normal people don’t have the time to learn about, clarks are the people you will go to… there is one in your life, close but you just haven’t noticed them.  clarklike females will dress from the “androgyny fashion collection” mix and mix, especially shoes… the clarklike males will be grey(with a splash of beige)  and have virtually no eye contact when speaking to you, which if they do, will consist of strings of incomplete sentences.

scotts: never stop moving, never stop talking, never fuckin stop…sports fans to a person…your scott is the one who introduces themselves whether they are entering a situation where they are the stranger or there is a stranger entering the setting where the scott  already is…when you move to a new place, the neighbor who comes to “welcome you to the neighborhood” that’s your scott…always helpful as long as “completing the task” is not the priority…scottian females…always attractive/seductive/commanding/demanding depending on the context, scottian males…always in charge…the person best described as “not always right but never uncertain…”

rogers: the most social and accommodating person you know, the roger is, in fact, most likely your family doctor, your family lawyer, your family accountant, emphasis on family…the person who knows the family history and insists that you come to the family reunion that’s your roger, the one who knows how many forks should be on which side of the plate…there’s your rogerian female…want to have a long conversation?…talk to a roger, they make it so easy to talk about yourself…the rogerian male will be well dressed and if you want to know if ascots and large briarwood pipes are still worn and/or smoked you will find the roger when you see either of them and if you want to imagine settling down and raising a family with a beautifully decorated home and be a member in all the right clubs and organisations…then a rogerian female will be near by.

There you have it, our  pocket guide to “Spotting the clarks, scotts and rogers“.  Have fun with this, and don’t worry so much.  They will demonstrate their characteristics, totally un-necessary to ask and probing, “are you a…”/”what would you do in…”/”If you could be…” kinds of questions.
Don’t  get me started on all the other fancy-schmansy personality schemes, the ones where you have to ask questions and add scores and triangulate the lexus nexus, screw that!  The Wakefield Doctrine is, as we say, unique and productive and most of all…it is fun!

Damn!  I really am excited for you (…lol yeah…excited…lol ) no seriously…I know that it will/may be a while, but  later today or tomorrow someone in your life will do something or say something and the proverbial light bulb will appear above your head and then a thought balloon…”Holy shit that is what they mean by a clark!”, listen to him, “how rogerian!” or man, “what a scott!“…and things will never quite be the same.

Welcome to the Doctrine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSAob1TnAvc

(…ewww…fictional high school student to writer claiming to be real….omg there are too many places to start…never mind…just one question: WHY?…)

Sorry, folks. You know how sometimes a song sticks in your head and the only way to get rid of it…

(…so to help the rest of us get that out of our minds…fictional and otherwise…? )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdRaf3-OEh4

Don’t forget, there are no stupid questions….only your questions…(borrowed from a famous advertising guy from the ’50s)

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