the Wakefield Doctrine

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

the Wakefield Doctrine (‘…shh…’)

with 9 comments

I have said in previous Posts that I can’t write (a Post) until I come up with a subtitle that ‘feels right’.  It is a funny thing, but then again, everything that is happening here at the Doctrine these days are ‘funny things’.  Of course, I don’t mean ‘ha ha’ funny things, no I mean the increasingly common feeling I get that makes me think: ‘jeez why would it occur to me to write that?’ (you need go no further than this Post, to get what I am talking about).  But its happening more and more.

I read other blogs as much as I can.  Some for the intellectual workout such as Oscar’s (“I’ve been meaning to tell you“) or Jason’s (Project:Enlightenment), others for the pleasure of reading, Mel’s (Spatula in the Wilderness) or even our own Roger ( a history) and  still others I read for the sheer guilty pleasure, like ronins (The Life and Times…) 

But there have been no blogs that I don’t get something out of, even if it is nothing more than making me think, ‘nice lick!  ‘yeah, I want to be able to do that’!

Perhaps that is what is driving this Post today, a sense of  ‘hey this blogging thing is not what I thought it would be.  Don’t ask me what I thought it would be, because that would require me to put myself in a mental place before I did this and how can that be a valid…‘ (ok,  kids step away from the clarklike answer, leave it be.  We’ll leave, so it can pull itself into the metaphysical forest and die (or maybe  be alright.)  That’s how Jethro intended things to be kids!  Natural reality is beautiful and perfect.)
Never mind the Ed Sullivan-ing1 that we get when we see/read a perfectly well-intentioned effort to reach out to a cold universe that is met with a rolled-up newspaper swatting by a misanthropic, mass-culture-based diety…(it’s back! I told you to let it go and be by itself, kids.  Now I have to put it out of it’s misery myself.) 
(No matter how much we want to believe to the contrary, the statement: ‘this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you’ is actually true.)

Stop, clark, stop right now.  Teach us something new.  Leave the emotional sharing to the rogers who know how to do it.

(Whew! Thank you ma’am, I reckin I needed that).

So, todays ‘Lesson From the Doctrine’ is: we can see ourselves in everyone and everything we encounter during the day. The core of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is predicated upon the truth of this: that we all have the potential strengths of all three forms.
For various reasons (which will be explored when somebody f*ckin asks), we become one of the three.  But until the day we die we can see through the eyes of the others because that capacity is and always has been within us.

(Hey Hey A big shoutout to Slovena!! Yeah!  They be joinin our european contingency!  Rock that international shit, yo.  Watchin the West Coast too! We don’t be havin no tupac/biggie shit round here.  Glad to have you, far out man/manette)
(Got that little map widget lower left, show where readers have come from. Way cool.)

1) Ed Sullivaned for those too young to get the reference, Ed Sullivan was an ex-newspaper guy who got a variety show in the early days of TV.  All he would do is introduce acts and sometimes do a really strained interact with a guest.  Ed looked a lot like Richard Nixon doing entertainment.  Anyway, the term Ed Sullivaning refers to the vicarious embarrassment that is sometimes the result of watching live acts screw up.  The show was on live and it had juggling acts, (a lot of juggling acts).  And when the guy up on stage with the plates spinning on a stick (?!) would have them drop, some of us watching would feel embarrassed sitting safely in our homes.)

Advertisements

Written by clarkscottroger

November 13, 2009 at 9:14 am

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Ok. Here is the question you’ve been meaning to answer if someone would f*king ask: What predicates the various reasons that we all have the potential to become one of the three (clarkscottroger)? Personally I believe the entire concept of the clarkscottroger is quite insightful and that anyone who immerses themselves in the theory will be grateful to finally know why they do the things they do and how they preceive the world.

    AlmostKatherine Hepburn

    November 18, 2009 at 10:31 am

  2. Would you re-phrase the question?

    I think the question is ‘why do we end up a clark, a scott or a roger, when we start with the potential for any/all three?’

    (If that is your question, nod your head).

    Thank you….clark

    And there is more information in that direction that we will be happy to share, frankly there has been a relative dearth of questions from readers with as much understanding as (your question) implies.

    clarkscottroger

    November 18, 2009 at 10:48 am

  3. WOW!! A scottian? Really? I rather fancied myself as a clark.

    AlmostKatherine Hepburn

    November 21, 2009 at 7:47 pm

  4. That would be (a) ‘scott’, to have the qualities of a scott is to be ‘scottian’
    Used as an adjective or adverb, not a noun.

    It is a part of the (Doctrine) that it is every individuals right to ‘decide’ which of the three they are. Having said that it is everyone else right to decide what a person is…it all works out in the end.

    Here at the Doctrine there is a constant effort to develop objective and quantitative ways to identify a person’s form. ‘From a distance’, but this is intended to be a collaborative effort so tell us, what do you see in yourself that tells you that you have a clarklike nature, as apposed to simply being a scott?
    Huh? (Your answer should suffice to answer the overall question.)

    And no, this is not a trick question. Say something ‘clarklike’, I dare ya, I double dare ya…

    clarkscottroger

    November 22, 2009 at 6:05 am

  5. When I awoke this morning the very first thing that came to mind was the realization that you were not necessarily referring to me as a scott, but rather my comment as being scottian. Mind you, this was before I had my tea and visited your reply. (Kind of scary, eh?) At any rate, I will delve into the reasons that I perceive myself as a clark at a later time when I can coherently explain my reasoning. Or perhaps I’ve just answered that question. Hmm…

    AlmostKatherine Hepburn

    November 22, 2009 at 8:27 am

  6. A-a-nd in this corner….

    I think Miss AlmostKatherine Hepburn has answered the question. I say she is a clark. How could anyone say otherwise?

    Girlieontheedge

    November 22, 2009 at 8:58 am

  7. Ms. H burn

    Here is a fairly reliable (indicator) of clarklike nature; how much do you enjoy having your picture taken? (A more telling way of expressing this is: how mad do you get when someone takes your photo, by surprise, saying ‘whats the big deal’.)?

    And as a bonus question, on the Page “So which one am I?” in this blog, which of the two characters do you identify more with, Ace or Nicky?

    clarkscottroger

    November 23, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    • I’m not crazy about having my picture taken. However, I certainly would not throw a fit about being “surprised.” The few times that it has happened, I’ve just laughed it off and probably called the person (kiddingly, of course) a jerk.
      On to the bonus question. I emphatically do NOT identify with Nicky. The guy is a frickin lunatic. Completely off of his rocker. Ace is the guy for me, although I wouldn’t be able to remain that calm. I’d feel compelled to jump in and pull Nicky off of the guy.

      AlmostKatherine Hepburn

      November 23, 2009 at 7:33 pm

      • Well, I may be just a lil ‘ol country creator but I’m gonna stay with scott on this one…
        Of course, it is a basic tenent of the Doctrine that it is our ‘right’ as individuals to decide which we are, clarks, scotts or rogers. And, of course it is a matter of degree, given that we have the proclivities of all three.
        And, in the final analysis, character will tell…
        And there is nothing that says a person can’t change their mind (about what they are) one of the three, at any rate.

        Welcome to the Doctrine…

        clarkscottroger

        November 24, 2009 at 1:52 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: