the Wakefield Doctrine

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

Let’s just prime the wordage pump, just a li’l bit with this from 2010 (like the first full year of this here blog, here).

(Funny how this RePrint thing works as a rhetorical lubrication* but we’re thinking about a number of topics which, in the interest of keepin’ things moving, we’ll save for later this week. These topics include: the perception (and role) of time (and it’s passage) as manifested in clarks, scotts and rogers; the translation challenge and, finally, how to get deeper into ‘the other two’ worldviews for to have a better grasp of their reality.)

damn! that all sounds interesting! But in the interest of … oh, yeah! Cynthia has promised to recover a phrase she employed during our (along with Denise) conversation on this past weekend’s call-in. It keyed an insight into the development of a person’s relationship with fatigue as we age. Stay tuned.

(oh, yeah… a little crib sheet for this very vintage post. that last section, in blue font? a character that turned up and hung out in our post-writing, for a time. now, from the perspective of our current interest in learning to write fiction, we can appreciate how much the Wakefield Doctrine has to nurture the potential to encourage one to use it as a tool for self-improving ourselfs. In this instance, it allowed us to explore and practice our interest in writing, all while, in while in the middle of a ‘serious Doctrine post’.)

(Hey, just noticed (yeah, early am and all) this post was written before the custom of inserting a top-of-post image developed. Interesting.)

God said to Abraham, kill me a son. Abe say, man you must be puttin me on

February 28, 2010

(Man, tough Post.)I mean, I know what I want to talk about, but it’s how to talk about it that has me dialing: 1-800-kitchensink.
You do not want to know how many drafts it has taken to get even this far.  But write it I will. (remind me to tell you later about how helpful our Miss Sullivan has been).Let’s start at the beginning (…”and go on till you come to the end”  L Carroll):‘The Wakefield Doctrine is built upon the idea that everyone experiences the world/reality differently, from one of three overlapping but distinctive perspectives… maintains that this characteristic perception of reality can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers.’
…we also possess the potential to see the world as a clark or a scott or a roger.  It is only the predominance of qualities from one (over the other two) that makes us what we are.  No one is only clarklike or scottian or rogerian. (source:  About: The Wakefield Doctrine (italics added).Why quote that which we all know?To assert balance.
In the last few Posts we have received a good amount of input from the scottian perspective. We appreciate this. The Doctrine is being read by more and more (repeat) Readers because of this input.
(and)…it is the nature of  scotts to present strong opinion on all matters, the topic  of rogers being no exception.
(All Opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the person, character or self-identified entity attaching their names to said Opinion.  These Opinions do not necessarily reflect the Opinions of other Progenitors or Downsprings.  All Comments are possibly incorrect, with the exception of those from the one with the marked penchant for parenthes(es))¹So, let us go right to the matter at hand.

Rogers are awful…
they are awfully opinionated and parochial, they are awfully judgemental and closed minded and obsessed with the mundane and the measurable and the repeatable and the consistent and the reliable and…it is a good thing we have rogers or we would all be living on the open savannah, sleeping in trees and looking over our shoulders every time we tried to have a drink of water.Our scottian brethren (in fact our individual scottian aspect) are not incorrect in their assessment of the foibles of the rogerian nature; they are simply limited.  Their Comments are direct and without nuance or subtly,  you know:  scottian.  But neither are they (the scotts) at fault, they are merely expressing their perception.
Having said that, I would not want to fly to Vegas in a plane designed by scotts (or for that matter, a plane built by clarks).
In the first case, the plane would have 5  over-sized jet engines stuck on various sections of the fuselage, mostly towards the back of the plane, painted bright colors and the pilot would be expected to be able to stick his head out the window to scream at other passing jets.  In the second case, the interior would consist primarily of couches (with pillows and quilts),  that while comfortable, would tend to slide around (a lot)  and there would be 6 or 7  bathrooms taking up the entire back half of the plane.(You get my point).It is a given here at the Doctrine that those who participate are assumed to be able to handle whatever forms of interactions occur.  And while we maintain the editorial right to shape expressions of opinions, it is with no small amount of pride that we can say that has not happened yet.  What you read is the direct and un-abashed thoughts and opinions of the contributors.

But that is only half of the challenge we faced sitting down at the keyboard here.

The other half (and possibly the half with the greater significance for this thing of ours) is how to speak to them (rogers and scotts and clarks),  as brother Malcom said:

“And during the few moments that we have left, we want to talk, right down to
earth, in a language that everybody here can easily understand.” (Malcolm X)

The simple fact of the matter is that if not written in the ‘language’ of the type, no message will get through.  Another way to say it:  if I do not manage to ‘speak scottian‘ to a scott, my message will be misinterpreted at best and totally unheard at worst.  If I cannot speak to a roger in the language of the herd then I will be treated as noise.

This is the dilemma we face with this Post.

But, fuck it.  We are writing (this) which is not the same as assuming that we are communicating (with the Reader).

Hey scott!  Hey!!  Don’t eat all of the local herd or you may find yourself having to go outside of your own hunting grounds…getting hungry…getting weak…finding new hunting grounds and finding…a whole new pack of scotts…(and we all know how social and co operative scotts are). (Can you say, ‘the weak and old simply get left behind to die’?  I knew you could!)

Hey roger…get over it.  The herd is all there is… until you look up.  Once you see the herd,  I hate to burst your bubble pal,  you ain’t in the herd anymore.  And try as you might, you can never, never bury yourself in historical novels and documentaries by Saint Ken, never go back to that bovine indifference to the werld.  And those scottsthat you love supplying food for and the clarks that make you feel so better than…guess what?
They know that you know.  And know that you know that they know…

oh clark…don’t think you can type yourself out of this one…no, there will be no literary constructs to divert the Reader.  No mf…you of all of the three forms, you are the one to indulge in the ‘people? can’t we all just get along’  bullshit.  Which, when you really look at it, is a sin against all that the Doctrine stands for… goddamn dude, you really think that just sitting there and typing this shit week after week was going to change you into the real person you have always been afraid that you are not?  Well, you may be on track but you better be prepared to step outside of your perfectly defined-surely-this-includes-all-inferences-and-possibilties little world.  As the Lady would say, ‘You been told’.

Welll…that sort of went all toyota on us, didn’t it?  (Heh heh)  …oh Janie!

? no…busy now…come back.. oh alright!  Now I am called in to lighten things up? Any of you real people/Readers think through the implications of using a ‘literary construct’ to lend a sense of reasonableness to the shenanigans that go on around here? Even a hint of how messed up that is?  No, I didn’t, think you had…
Hey, did you know that the old janitor/music video guy (Mr. B, I believe) was once a professional musician? yeah! he was just telling me…no,  not too old man tries to recapture… but I am an ‘A’ student in the Doctrine and I did not know that a roger could deliberately give up his rogerian expression…yeah me too.  Anyway  he had to run and left the following music  said that if you don’t try too hard you will get the connection…whatever
…can I go home now? this does get just a bit tedious…

1) In case of disagreement, the protocol will be followed:
we are right and you are wrong…

* ?!?!? yeah, ‘ewww’