the Wakefield Doctrine

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

the Wakefield Doctrine (Various and Sundry Arcanities)

with 7 comments

From the Roger;

     Yeah, that’s right. Blue. Who says Rogers don’t live dangerously??Woohoo!!!

     I am posting this front-page style on the presumption that it would end up here anyway; although I never see my stuff as being post-worthy. Mine always reads like a big, long…really long…self-indulgent pile of the metaphysical November leaves of my brain. Now there’s a country song title for you. But what rhymes with “metaphysical”? Hmm…reciprocal…despicable…inimicable…how about silly pop song style? “Let’s Get Metaphysical”?  “Let’s Get Despicable”?

     Having taken note of several synchronicital oddities that have recently appeared in my sub/semi-conscious, I feel drawn to share them with my virtual brethren.

     The blog seems to be going very nicely, save for the abhorrent hip-hop references. I am sadly left with an image of a smiling Fred MacMurray, complete with pipe and buttoned sweater…in long shorts and Timberlands. How much metaphor-mixing can one indulge in without permanent scarring? And I suspect that Fred may not have the street cred that he’d like me to believe.

     I’ve also enjoyed the interactions between the Clark and the linked sites. There seems to be a shared similarity, a kind of determined individuality seasoned with a mildly begrudged respect.  Bloggers of a feather…

     My particular offering today addresses the notion of comfort. Comfort zones, comfort food, etc, and how we all ( CSR’s of course) use comfort to our respective advantage. We all have a pretty clearly defined comfort zone; but Clarks are the only ones who will purposely drive themselves well beyond its boundaries purely in the interests of science. As a motivational tool. It’s a convoluted Clarkian science, yes, but it is quite similar to Carlos Castanada in spirit. And not Carlos, actually. He’s more of a Roger who gets pummeled by forces beyond his understanding. It’s really Don Juan, the teacher, who is more to the point. ( And none of those books actually have anything to do with drug use. Don Juan initially let Carlos take a lot of hallucinogens because Carlos thought he was supposed to. It took the fool over ten years to realize that it wasn’t necessary. At any rate, Clark/Scott/Roger is quite similar in this sense; it’s initially about who’s who and which of us you seem to be the most alike with. That’s just the start. When you become somewhat comfortable in your CSR skin, then the challenge becomes to find ways to pry yourself out of your comfortable frame of reference. Which leads to a bit of metaphysical angst. Which in turn leads to even more of the same, but scarier. Which ultimately leads to change. You might just retreat headlong into old habits that you’ve always used as defense mechanisms. But every now and then… you just may take a few steps in the new direction. And that would be a good thing. We are all taught one way or another in life to always race towards a goal with all haste, that time is of the absolute essence; only to find out that the real teaching was in the journey. So, yes, of course, we are all meant to ” find ourselves.” But, once found, try to have the courage to dismantle yourself with the same enthusiasm. And then you’ll find yourself…. wait..what??

     Damn… getting pretty Baptist preacher there. Well it’s true. Most people are not at all comfortable with that concept, but it’s still true at the end of the day. Just check John 10:17. And before I go totally Charles Stanley on you guys , I will bid you all adieu. ( Hmm…I didn’t know that my internal Baptist preacher was French…)



Written by clarkscottroger

November 13, 2009 at 10:17 pm

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. the roger is in the house, yo!

    (I’m sorry, did I write that in electrons?)

    I know that I speak for all readers, when I type that ‘it is good to have a roger to take out a pipe (and the Progenitor roger did, in fact, have a pipe), sit in a leather chair by a virtual fireplace and give us words or comfort and pleasure.’
    This most recent of Posts is a productive (and really rather welcomed) relief from the previous Posts. (wait for it…) These Posts, while quite educational and informative are not as much fun and enjoyable (at least in the short run) as a good rogerian (..coming up, not yet..) Post.

    But then again is that not what this shit be about!(..hold off, hold off), the Doctrine can and will offer a way of being that you will find valu…

    (Sloveniaaaa! is in the house! Hey! Isreal is in the house! Lets shout out to our growing red dot in the middle of the US!! Homind, please, take a look at dat map! Isreal, I will bet you a hat that our visitor from there be representin the rogerian clan yeah!)

    (Hey I tried, (to resist) but there is a school of thought that says that clarks are ‘twisted’ scotts. It is true. But try to get Fred-fuckin-MacMurray sittin there to explain that to ya.)


    November 14, 2009 at 10:09 am

  2. Deconstructing the self…interesting concept planted in my head over the weekend by Clark. We all contain all three elements. One emerges as dominant–that becomes our “which one are you”. If I’m really honest. I know that there have been times when I was a complete fucking roger. God! It galls me to admit that. After a failed romance, heartbroken and wounded, pining away, indulging in emotional excesses all over the place. I WAS a roger then. Still embarasses me to remember it. When I was younger, still not formed, only about 18 or 19, I went through a clark phase that still scares me when I think about it today. I was thinking all kinds of crazy, schizoid thoughts all day every day about the nature and fluidness of reality. Very distressing conepts for anyone–but especially to someone who eventually mature into a scott. As a scott, I know reality is reality. If you run really fast into a tree, you hurt yourself. The tree is real. But when I was a clark for awhile, I could entertain thoughts about reality being nothing more solid than my own thoughts. Reality is perception. I distinctly, clearly remember those thoughts–and how disturbing they were to me. At that time I was terrified by the prospect that I might think like this for the rest of my life. It would set me apart. Isolate me. Leave me with nobody to talk with, because I was convinced that there was no other person on the planet thinking this way but me. Thank God, I matured out of that to the spitting, snorting, swearing, aggresive, competetive scott I was always destined to be. But, for a brief time, I have been both of the others. Not comfortable being either one–but I was there. And so, my roger and clark must still be with me. Not so far beneath the surface. The thought is not comforting, but must be acknowledged. There is something about the COMFORT factor. I CAN be a roger. I CAN be a clark. But I’m only comfortable being a scott.
    Brings up an interesting side note to this entire “thing” we have here. Years ago we used to talk about Bob Johnsons. A Bob Johnson is, theoretically anyway, a person who is equally a scott, roger, and a clark. Very rare. Also very unstable–and they usually self-destruct somehow. The effect of not having a dominant type, results in such undirected, unfocused behavior that usually ends in some kind of bad outcome. I’ve personally known only one Bob Johnson in my lifetime. His name was Ed Lees. After brilliantly inventing a business, and building it to an unbelievable level of success, he drank himself to death–quite publicly. Humiliation and defeat defined the end of his life. Because he contained all three elements equally, he was in fact brilliant–and hugely effective and successful. However it could not be sustained–and he crashed landed on his way to his eventual ignominious death. People shook their heads and acknowledged his brilliance–and lamented his strong self-destructive impulses.
    Bob Johnsons are rare. Like three-toed sloths. A historical figure I can name who was probably also a Bob Johnson is Richard Nixon. Same story.
    So be aware of your recessive styles, but be grateful that you have one dominant style. It seems a risky business at best to try and “develop” your recessive side(s). (Parentheses are for you, Clark. I know you like ‘em). Too much development of recessive traits could cause you to become a Bob Johnson.
    And now, just because I need to do it….Fuck you clark, you intellectually constipated retard. And fuck you Roger, you simpering, frightened, child. Perhaps I am talking to my inner clark, and my inner roger, when I attack like that. But, maybe not. Fuck you anyway

    Glenn Miller

    November 16, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    • “Mature into a scott”? Some would say that is an oxymoron. But let me get to the(rhetorical) point – is it not a worthy endeavor to recognize and incorporate the advantageous/positive behavior(s) of the other 2 forms in order to enhance/enrich our “dominant” selves?


      November 17, 2009 at 10:44 pm

      • Yes, yes it is…
        You have identified yourself as a clark by the mere fact that you (seriously) consider that there might be a benefit to being someone else.
        (Allowing that all participants here are enlightened to a degree sufficient to have a perspective on their form) it is still in the nature of clarks to try and be ‘other’.

        Interesting paradox/contradiction no?

        The source of most of a clark’s life-difficulties is their ‘otherness’ and yet it is their drive to be ‘other’ that increases it.

        The question hangs there: why?
        (and as the proof of this, the supporting question of ‘why ask why’?)

        This Doctrine, by the way, is one of the few things that will allow a clark respite in their search for otherness. Here the Doctrine can provide and fill the need to be validated as other, yet does not claim to be ‘the other state’.

        Think of this place (the Wakefield Doctrine) as an airport perfectly disguised as a happy little suburban family home. As much as you desire, no one will know why you are really here. (PS clarks have a self-destructive gene, the expression of which shall not be tolerated in ‘our safe, normal little home.)

        You been told.


        November 19, 2009 at 6:38 am

  3. There, there. There, there.

    But I do want to thank you for the effort to put an idea out before the readers that can help further understand this thing of ours.

    The idea of deconstructing the self is as old as time and pervasive as adultery (in human society). It seems to be a necessary part of the socialization dynamic that the individual goes throught a destructive/transformative process. If anythnig this is a rogerian notion. Sending the pre-adult male into the wilderness (or Walmart) for an extended period of time with the hopes of through stress and deprivation causing the horney carapace of individuality to be sloughed off, leaving a naked (potential) member of the society/herd.
    Once the new loyalites, the new way of perceiving the world is given, forced upon, offered and otherwise used to produce a productive member of society. A healthy, sane human is born.

    No, Glenn, it is not abhorrent that you should have to remember your own clarklike or rogerien episodes. What really is bothering you is that you know that none of this is certain, including (and especially) your own precepts.
    The concept of deliberately breaking down that which, to a normal scott, would be no more perceivable than gravity and just as we do not need to recognise the effect of gravity to get through a day, this idea is way, way way fuckin beyond the pale.



    November 16, 2009 at 5:17 pm

  4. Hold on Mr. CSR. That is not the statment that was made. (benefit to being someone else) Perhaps it is as simple as wanting to “use” characterists of the other 2 forms to be a better clark. Or perhaps to move about more easily(and freely) in the herd or for once be the life of the party.
    I see Mr. Miller’s comment as pretty much saying the same thing -revel in your own form?


    November 19, 2009 at 10:54 am

  5. yeah, but he’s just a fuckin scott.

    got a line on a totally insightful resource there, no?

    to become another is die, you become rogerian, then at a certain but unspecified point you, as a clark, will disappear.
    Are you sure that you will be able to (or more to the point, be willing to) get back home.

    Here’s a hint: don juan speaks of clearing the island (of the tonal) before an encounter with power. smart move. you will still get re-arranged, and tossed about, but you have a better chance to predict where you end up.

    (btw take the above and get you scottian guru there to help you assimilate this…sure it will work out real fine.)
    yeah ask him to help you understand de-construction, I guarentee he will tilt his head quizzically, bark a little and bring you a ball to play with. instead of that crazy clark shit.


    November 19, 2009 at 11:29 am

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: