Nowhere near the edge…of completion

No, I am not talking football. (Like I ever doubted that my team would lose.)  I’m talking about myself.  You know, the project that never seems to get finished.  Gets put to the side every now and then, coasts a little when it should be toiling steadily towards the fnish line.  But then, who can know where/when the finish line is? 

“So where does this leave a person such as myself?”  That is to say, a clark?  Thanks to the Wakefield Doctrine, I have been introduced to other clarks who are rather active on the internet in the form of blogs and such.  They have provided me a source of inspiration and encouragement that we like people really can exist “out there” even if “out there” is as expansive a place as is the space that surrounds us all.

The first clark I made contact with “out there”, via another clark, is one Seven Ravens.  Not unclarklike, she is also known as Molly M.  You can visit her by clicking on her site listed to the right on my blogroll or you can find her at the FaceBook.  Coincidentally, she is also a proponent of the Wakefield Doctrine She read, realized and understood.  But then she is a clark after all. 

At this juncture, perhaps I need to restate that I, GirlieOnTheEdge, am a clark.  I do this, I recapitulate that which I find obvious, so that there is no misunderstanding as to how I view the world – what reality it is I am experiencing.  Some of you know that of late I have been on a “journey” of my own.  A journey of self – development, (self) evolution and the like, involving all sorts of “analyzin’ and dramatizin” (it’s the Lady Molly. it’s the Lady).  It is a sort of selves-actualization if I may cannibalize  a term (only) from Maslow and co. 

And there is Clairepeek.  Here’s where it gets a little interesting for me.  LOL.  Claire has been referencing the Wakefield Doctrine in some of her recent posts.   Claire you see,  is a clark.  That’s the cool part.  Someone “out there” in cyberspace,  on an entirely different continent is writing/creating/contributing all the while acknowledging just as publicly that she is a clark.  I recently left a comment at Claire’s  January 13, 2012 Wordy World post commisserating with her in what she was going through…you know, clark to clark. You can imagine my surprise, when I read her response to my comment.*  Check it out:

“Thanks Downspring#1 :D
First of all… I need to say this because you need – as a roger – to understand the   motivation behind what I (and I think as any clark-like person would)”

(In my comment to Claire) I could not have referenced myself as a clark too many more times without being totally redundant, so what exactly happened?  Claire read my response and “saw” a roger.  But did she?  Claire is known in some circles as an “FOTD” which = “Friend of the Doctrine” (The Wakefield Doctrine).  Why? Because she has demonstrated on more than one occaision through her comments her understanding of the premise underlying The Wakefield Doctrine.  Which is why I was confused.  How could she think me a roger when in fact I flat out made the statement that I was a clark?  I can only assume she was reading my comment/words and getting a sense of something “not clarklike“.  It was not my intention to don a rogerian suit when I headed over to Claire’s “house” however.  I am perplexed…..(“tell me Vivian (as in Westwood), what went wrong?”)

* Over at the Wakefield Doctrine I am known as Downspring#1



  1. clarkscottroger · January 16, 2012


    this is interesting!

    …old people will remember, back in the day, say the 1950s and 1960s, science was big in the culture and at the elementary school level it was heavily pushed, with the emphasis on the practical side of science.
    Atom bombs!

    One of the artifacts that has stayed with me from those days, was an illustration of the ‘chain reaction’ as demonstrated in the useful atomic explosion. The illustration would show 3 or 4 atoms bouncing around some kind of spherical chamber…then one hits the other and the (one hit) splits into 2 atoms… (AKH! stop that!)
    In any event, now you have more atoms bouncing around the chamber, faster and faster (not sure why they have to speed up…) but eventually the whole fuckin thing explodes… which was, apparently the whole point of the example of the physics of the atom.

    …betcha we see a bunch of strange things this year, ’round the ol’ Doctrine.


    (…this timeline being brought to you by Your Friends at the Wakefield Doctrine….”you know you can trust us, we’re here to help you!”)


  2. Clairepeek · January 17, 2012

    OMG! I did that, didn’t I? Now I understand why, when I wrote that you were a roger it felt… how should I put it… odd. It really did… 🙂

    I have no excuse but my probable confusion since – although you clearly stated (and I know it too) that you are a fellow clark – we were discussing the possibility of exploring the two other & secondary personalities that somehow are – in some aspects – giving us another perception of our clark-like world viewing (I think). This is what confused me – although it should not have – your PS got me thinking all wrong:

    “P.S. I seemed to have ended up talking about myself here!(but not too much, eh?) You do know Claire that that is a telltale sign of a roger. In conversation they will be talking about themselves, what they are feeling. They will be talking about their “world”. It will not be about you. It will be about them.”

    So I need to say this… I did not see you as a Roger… I got confused but that is no excuse. It won’t happen again… I am sorry! Can you see my face? Very red when I read your post… and still now 😛

    Please come back to Wordy World and yell at me will ya ^_^!


    • GirlieOnTheEdge · January 17, 2012

      I will not yell at you Claire! I think with this post I was indulging in my rogerian aspect. lol A thing to remember is that the Doctrine is for you first. In that same way, it is for me first and apparently I wasn’t clear in what it was I wanted to express. No, Claire, you can lay this one at my feet. What you have done for me is to remind me of some basics. If I am clear about the intent behind my comments, whether at your house or others’, then the proper words will follow. The onus is on me to properly express myself so that I am understood. By anyone…a clark, scott or roger.
      Since we are on topic (sort of), I think for me it’s about the fact that when I come in contact with another clark I automatically assume certain things. (Kind of like being around family.) But you know what they say about assuming 😀
      I will be back in Wordy World but there won’t be any yelling. LOL
      For me, I had better get a new post up stat!


  3. Molly M. · January 18, 2012

    Sometimes, it is hard to see the things closest to you. I think the same goes for people. The closer I am to someone, the hard time I have with labeling them. Maybe it is because I do see all the little nuances. Likewise, recognizing another clark-like female was the most difficult thing for me, when I first began reading through the doctrine. I have come to see it in pictures, but still find myself debating when reading or talking to someone.


    • GirlieOnTheEdge · January 18, 2012

      I agree. So often we look over and away from that which is right in front of us. A twist on the saying “familiarity breeds contempt”.
      I also agree with there being a higher level of difficulty identifying we like people. I find the process of elimination fairly helpful. The nuance thing is valid. You might catch a scottian female in a brief clarklike “mood” or perhaps confuse a scottian woman’s sociability as evidence she is a roger. At the same time those very nuances that at times are confusing may help to confirm “who” a person is – clark, scott or roger.
      You can also pay attention who someone hangs around with – who are their friends? Example: at my place of work there are two particular front end managers who happen to be very good friends. Friend “A” was easy to identify as a clark. She has a stoic sense about her; a sense of humor that is subtle, dry and often “out there”. She will go the extra mile to get the job done because she is used to doing what needs to be done.(acute awareness/sense of responsibility) That and well, we are just comfortable with each other. Friend “B”, although a long time employee for the company, came to work at my store shortly after I started. Initially, I thought her a clark as well. But something didn’t “feel” right. I knew she was not a roger which of course left….scott. So I decided to pay attention to the dynamic between Friend “A” and Friend “B”. Sure ’nuff a clark/scott friendship. Not quite Batman and Robin or Fric and Frac (whoever they are lol)but a rather pleasant, complementary friendship…without the drama that inevitably gets infused with rogerian friendships.
      Thank you for stopping by Molly! You have given me food for thought and for future posts involving the Wakefield Doctrine.


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