(As previously noted, the Progenitor roger is more comfortable using Comments as (his) preferred form of communicating. While respecting that, I claim the right to edit, to the extent of copy/pasting (his) Comments into this Post.) (Other than ‘cut and paste’ and formatting as a block quote, there has been no change, alteration or modification to the Comment. It is, as the rogerian expression would have it, ‘complete and unabashed’).
From the Roger:
On my way home from work, I generally listen to a radio program called ” Fresh Air” on NPR. Interviews and articles on a wide array of stuff, hosted by Teri Gross. Today, she was interviewing Tracy Morgan, who was an SNL guy and is now on “30 Rock”. She has great skills as an interviewer, and always seems to get something good out of that scenario.
Sadly, even she was at a bit of a loss with Tracy Morgan. I can now honestly say that I have never heard a more hopelessly Rogerian Roger than this guy. OMG. Completely mesmerized with himself, absolutely awash in self-indulgence. Lots of dead air in this interview, because Tracy had to keep fighting back tears as he ranted about the only truly important thing on this Earth.
This sort of thing can send a Progenitor screaming in search of the nearest cliff. It is acutely painful to have to witness. I felt simultaneously angered and embarrassed. Angry, because these people are out there, and likely doing massive damage to anyone who has to interact with them. Embarrassed, because I see elements of myself clearly. This bad of a Roger should be simply cut from the herd and made to learn to survive on his own, or not. Whatever.
I’d like to offer a point of clarification, also, to people who may be new to this blog and it’s main idea. Yes, Clark-Scott-Roger are all somewhat static personality types that may seem almost stereotypical. But- and this really is the Point, if you would indulge me- as Progenitors, we all three have grown astronomically above and away from those one-dimensional caricatures. The ” original” Clark could never have dreamed of piloting a blog. I could never have gotten out of my own way enough to ever consider contributing to it. And even though the “original” Scott hasn’t said much in this forum, that in itself is quite telling. We have all…evolved. I myself could only quote a few significant particulars that may have caused such a dramatic and yet gradual change. Maybe just basic human nature; if it doesn’t kill you, it will make you stronger. I am still fundamentally a Roger, but now have the bittersweet capacity to see the horrific learning curve that a fledgling Roger has to get through to survive. The poor bastards. If they could see all of that at one glance, that in itself would crush them.( Either that, or they’d get a gig on a network sitcom…)This would hold true for all three types, of course. But we all seem to have found our particular ways to change and still remain the same.
So, now we have Progenitors ( Clark, Scott, and I) and Downsprings ( second-generation cadre). Some of the Downsprings are actually better examples of us than we are. I sense that we might need one more descriptive term just to fit the newbies, though. Anyone have an idea? Or does “downspring” serve that purpose as well?
And just a last bit of field advice for those Rogers who are just awakening to these odd and awkward Clarkscottrogerian gems of truth; aim low, conserve your ammunition, and for God’s sake, stay off the radio.
When this blog first came into existence, most of the discussion centered on, ‘no way! You actually did it! Hey, let me try!’ You know, that kind of far-reaching, insightful thought. This should come as zero surprise to anyone reading this, because if you are reading this you are one of the 100 plus million blog writers that are out there. (And the beauty part, the fatal attraction of this world of blogs is the tendency to think, ‘jeez, I know I am not (fill in your favorite writer), but if I get only one tenth of one percent of those other guys to read my Posts, I’ll be famous!’)
The fact is, the internet is clogged with good ideas. The blogsphere has a tendency to look like a bus station from the sixties; busy, lots of interesting people, ‘hey is that guy throwing up over there?’ But hey so what? Afterall, the Beatles spent years playing in basement night clubs in Germany and went through 18 drummers before they were an overnight success.
Rogers’ contribution today brings home the idea that no matter how good, how original an idea might be, without a clear presentation, it is worthless. Roger speaks of the fact that we, (the clark, the scott and the roger), have all evolved. Have changed. Does that mean the title of this blog should be ‘the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers and the people that they have turned into and the other people that seem to act like them at times and not like them at other times’)?
This is a serious question.
The thing of it is, the Doctrine, while it has become a public exposition of the personal experiences of three friends, seems to have legs in the real world. Allowing for the possibility of self-delusion/illusion/allusion, (NO! say it ain’t so!), We will persist in this effort to carry the message of the Wakefield Doctrine to the world at large, one Post at a time.
To the discussion at hand. Should the Doctrine include a new term or description to account for the change and development that we all go through in life?
No.
(Now that was simple enough!)
(What do you mean, more explanation than that?) Alright. As to why it is not necessary to add categories or further elements to the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. Two reasons:
a) the foundation of the Doctrine. clarks, scotts and rogers represent ways of interacting with the world, and we are all born with the complete range of qualities. There is no purely scottian people or rogerian or clarklike. We have the potential (at a very young age at least) to become any of the three. It just seems that people develop into one or the other or other;
b)by definition, the Wakefield Doctrine contains the elements of what (roger) is asking, i.e. what happens, what do we become if we, (as clarks, or scotts or rogers) develop? That answer is contained in the Wakefield Doctrine.
You know, in a stomach turning way, Roger’s question is a sign, a signal that we are reaching a point in this thing of ours where we must change. Grow. Do something useful. But, you say, shouldn’t we wait until we have readers, followers,viewers, hits, page visits, inclusion on many other blog writers blog rolls?
Again, no.
If the metaphor of being a garage band blog holds, then it is time to get a bit more organised. (You all remember that there came a time for the endless jams, pointless solos to end. Time to get a set list. Stop the silly antics between songs.) So lets start to discuss practical application of the Doctrine.
uh, how about next Post? (meanwhile let me play this blues riff, its really something…)
