relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 48 relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 48

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “the second best day of the week for school lunch (not hamburger fricassee, but close!)

Welcome 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'

(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.

Share

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘…of rogerian expressions, scottian females’

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

megan-fox-joins-new-girl-as-jess-new-roommate

(new readers? note the throat tendons)

 

With all gratitude to Lewis Carroll and his timeless question, ‘why is a raven like a writing desk?’ I would pose the semi-rhetorical question: What does a scottian woman sound like when she tries to speak rogerian?

Now has never been a better time to…!”

See?! See what I have to contend with? A reality full of Doctrine remnants, relics, and large-sorta-like-in-the-movie-‘Alien’-these-scary-organomechanical structures?

I’m at work today, trying to earn a living. In the process doing the thing that I do, stumbled upon agent website and written across the front, the above (example is abridged) statement, accompanied of course with a very good photo of the afore-referenced scottian female.

If you’re here (and still reading), I’ll assume you’re familiar with one of primary (and, frankly, endearing) characteristic traits*  of those who live in the worldview of the Herd, the rogerian expression. It’s a form/style/idiosyncrasy of language totally specific to our herd-based brethren. Hell, I’ll go further and say that hearing a genuine rogerian expression makes it a leadpipe cinch that you’re dealing with a roger.

But a rogerian expression is more than simply a curious (and amusing) quirk in one’s choice of words. It is not an error (grammatical, rhetorical, any other -cal), it is a deliberate use of the ‘wrong’ words. It is also quite the aggressive act, because even, (and especially face-to-face), the roger employing the expression will exhibit not the slightest sign of self-consciousness or un-certainty. If anything, they will be ‘on high alert’. We students of the Doctrine are trained to watch the roger in a situation where a rogerian expression is being deployed, because we know how everyone else will react. rogers will appear not to notice anything out of the ordinary and the clarks and scotts will be laughing in delighted surprise. Don’t believe me?  Here, in the block quotes, are a few of the rogerian expressions that we’ve recorded.

…looking at his paycheck, a roger was heard to say: ‘oh man! Look at how much they deducted for aggravated security’

…talking about  a new DVD release for a movie: ‘no, I’m going to wait until they release the un-abashed edition’

…about to talk to a client: ‘I know I have to give them the bad news with the good news, I just won’t baby-coat it’

(and the most recent recorded rogerian expression)…

…writing in a blog about how egotistical certain real estate agents tend to be an unknown roger wrote: ‘ I have to say that, as a professional class, most agents are much too self-absorbent…”

 

But this post is not about rogers and rogerian expressions, it’s about scotts and their misuse of language. A scott will misuse language incidentally, on his or her way somewhere else.*  The key difference may seem subtle, as in both cases the malapropism represents an act of aggression. The rogerian expression is a way to exert force within the herd; the goal being to establish dominance over other herd members. Unlike the scott, rogerian dominance is a re-orienting of the focus of the members of the herd, as opposed to the starkly and very intimate one-on-one domination by a scott.

So what does this say about our scottian woman? You best bet is to smile and say, ‘there is no better time than this to do whatever it is you want me to.’

 

 

*  see?!! it gets under ya skin, I tells ya!

** if you said, ‘yeah 20 feet through the air, on their way for a permanent landing the neck of their unfortunate prey’…. gold star, yo.

Share

Phuct it Phyridae -the Wakefield Doctrine-

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

images-2

For the record, today’s Post title is not intended to imply a negative outlook on the day ahead. My clever misspelling is in reference to the view on life that maintains that, ‘there are some things in the day ahead you can control and there’s a whole bunch of things you cannot’. Know the difference and things will go much more better for everyone.

(I probably should leave the ‘positive metaphysic’ to Friend of the Doctrine Cynthia over at her new blog ‘Intuitive and Spiritual’. She is naturally gifted in the teaching of methods for changing one’s perspective on life, for the better. I do T-shirts, videos while driving and the occasional funny neologism. In fact, you would do well to go over there, sign up and see the positive side first. I kinda like the more twisted view.)

So, anyway. Its Friday morning, I’m up and sitting here trying to sneak up on some word herds to capture and add to Chapter 35 of Almira and as the day is trying to get my attention. Kinda like a person leaning out of a 3rd story window as you walk along the street, gesturing and waving their hands somewhat wildly, you can hear that they’re yelling something, but the traffic noise makes it unintelligible. So you continue walking, with much less determination, because you can’t tell if what you saw was a warning, an invitation, a welcome or even specific instructions. Clearly there is something imminent and equally clearly this person, who, by the way is waving from a 3rd story window of the very same building that you must visit. All you have to go on is the waving of hands and arms.

So the thought came to me, ‘the challenge in the day that’s coming to light around me with the reluctantly rising sun, like the stranger on the other side of the bed following an exciting but indistinct night, a shape to the blankets that denies the possibility that you slept alone and leaves no doubt that soon enough you will find out, the challenge for me today is not in the answers I get, but rather lies in the questions I choose to ask.’

ok…back to sneaking up on some new words.

 

Share

6 -the Wakefield Doctrine-

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Christinasworld

Good thing I checked! The prompt word for this week’s Six Sentence Story is ‘Native’. For reasons that I am comfortable leaving un-investigated, I was certain that the prompt word was ‘Virtue’. So certain was I that I was well into my pre-warm-up word-jumble that goes on inside my head in the lead up to writing my week’s six. You can (and should) thank zoe (aka ivy) for this most Rorschachian of writing exercises.

Native.

“Wait a minute, you can’t go out there like that; you aren’t anywhere near ready, what the hell are you thinking?”

“…I didn’t think a little color would hurt,” the girl, her hands fluttering around her head like a pack of anorexic-bulimic piranhas, small pieces of sparkling jewelry and screaming color appearing and disappearing around the cranial temperate zone of eyes, mouth and ears, stood tentatively in the darkened cloakroom.

You said you wanted to leave our land, you said you knew that you could only live a happy life as a member of one of the two native tribes; those are your words not ours,” the man, as nondescript as a handful of dry oatmeal thrown from a plane crossing the Sahara Desert, stood at the half-open door.

“I know what I said, what I don’t know is why you insist on making this more difficult than it needs to be, I have every right to be happy,” the young girl, growing less beautiful while becoming increasingly attractive, tried to glare at the older man, her eyes, once as deep as the ocean and un-limited as the sky, now throwing off sparks like a 50 cent zippo.

The man stood in front of the young girl, his own worn, once expensive nondescript clothing in no way accentuating the feelings zip-locked in his words, “Just remember, even though you won’t see us anymore, we’ll always be here and you’ll always be welcomed back.”

Hey, who’s the new girl” the volume in the lunchroom dropped like a stone, “…I don’t know but I’m gonna find out“,  a pool of quiet followed the girl as she walked, lunch tray in hand, into the cavernous room, “I think you want that table, all the cheerleaders, you know, the hot girls, they sit there.

 

Share

Six sighing sentence story -the Wakefield Doctrine-

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

asabove4

The word this week is….. Draft   (with an ‘R’, clark, with an ‘R’). That should be simple and straight forward enough.

If you’re new ’round here, this is Friend of the Doctrine zoe‘s most enjoyable bloghop, the Six Sentence Story. The title is kinda the full instructions, story of no more than and no less than six sentences. With the prompt word involved in some manner with the story. There’s a crew of bloggers what come around to this place on Thursdays just to take on the challenge. You should join us.

Draft.

“Do you feel that?”

“Feel what?”

“I don’t know, a breeze, a draft, is there a window open?”

“No, there isn’t.”

“Maybe I should get up and check, just to be sure, just need to get my bearings, give me a second, I don’t seem to be able to move.”

“We’re almost there, it’ll be alright, I won’t leave you.”

 

Share