… throw in a little “alone-time” and I think we’ll be alright. Funny thing that – “alone-time”. If you happen to be in a relationship with a roger, there is the challenge of trying to qualify the idea of being alone, as in “go away, I’d rather you not be here for awhile because I need some time by myself, without you“, in such a way that the roger does not feel bad. I know! Such sensitive creatures they, but be that as it may, it is about them after all. LOL (“yeah, yeah, I’m getting to the topic of today’s post”)
rogers v clarks: how does each view “the herd”? Come on. Isn’t that what you’ve been dying to ask but are afraid to ask? (“um..sure, that’s it, been tugging at my brain foreva!”) ….here’s the deal. I think I know how a roger sees the “herd”, the like members of our immediate world. But it’s as a clark, as a blue monkey as they say over at the Wakefield Doctrine. We be all intellectual about it. Deep down though, I know it’s not the same. clarks will look at the “herd” and see individuals with like qualities who happen to belong to a huge group. (“herd” is the Wakefield Doctrine’s term for “acceptable” society – you know, the normal people!) clarks will look at a members of the “herd” relating to each other personally, as individuals. rogers on the other hand, being the emotional ones, have a whole other perspective.
Where did this all come from? Well, the Progenitor clark and I were in a little discussion this morning and got to talking about rogers and clarks. That basically sowed the seed that resulted in my question leading off paragraph two. The beauty of the Doctrine, and why there will always be a carryover at GirlieOnTheEdge , is that it forms the basis for everything. It explains everything. Need to figure out why people act as they do, why they treat you the way that they do, why they react to stimuli differently? The answer is found within the Wakefield Doctrine a/k/a the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. Seriously. A day does not pass wherein I do not notice the clarks (not many), scotts (a few) and rogers (they are everywhere!) around me. [If you are new to the Doctrine just remember: clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel. And really, that is at the very crux of the answer.]
Man, I am so getting lost in my thoughts. (new Doctrine people: clarks are all about living in their heads, their giant brains, thinking, creating, extrapolating, projecting (all possible outcomes…to everything)/entertaining themselves, etc.) Now here’s the deal: a roger, and maybe I am going out on a limb here, looks at other members of the “herd” impersonally. They look to the”herd” in such a way as to validate their own status as belonging to the whole yet at the same time in such a way as to reinforce however that they are at the center of their own world. Being the center of their own world supercedes membership in the “herd”. The “herd” has value but in a distant, twice removed, remote, historical fashion. Just as rogers use clarks to validate/reinforce their membership in the “herd”, they use other rogers to solidify themselves as master(s) of their universe, the captain(s) of their own ship.
The phrase “it’s not you, it’s me” takes on a whole different meaning when you apply it to rogers. rogers are at the center of their own individaul world(s) despite /in spite of their need to feel a part of a collective, uniform community. They need the consistency, the numbers to validate their own “individual” selves. Other rogers, other “herd” members act merely as reinforcement to their own sense of being at the center of it all – at the center of their own world. Is it accurate to say that rogers de-personalize the herd while at the same time confirming/validating it’s existence? Heck, do they even like their comrades in conformity? What is their emotional connection, if any, to the “herd”? What is the rogerian perspective on the “herd”? How do they use them, each other. Fascinating……
Confused?! I know! I was looking for a simple way to ask the question: how do rogers see the members of the “herd”? What is their perspective? Do they like other “herd” members in the way we clarks might think they do? Am I out of the park to say that rogers use/need clarks to validate themselves within the herd but then reject the herd on an emotional level?
Way back, I wrote an interview style post with another clarklike female, Molly M. a/k/a Seven Ravens. I enjoyed it immensely so I just got to thinking… I need to interview the Progenitor roger here at GirlieOnTheEdge. He is, after all, the “source code” when it comes to the rogerian perspective ( there are only 3 ways in which to view the world, 3 realities – that of a clark, scott or roger). The roger btw has his own place of original verbocity called The Secessionist Rag (damn! the clues are everywhere!)
I have been around rogers my entire life and am much relieved to have the Wakefield Doctrine as a tool to navigate that world. And yet, and yet, I sometimes find myself struggling for a way to explain it simply and succinctly. I know organically, “osmotically” a lot about the rogerian worldview but it is through the lens of a clark. Most assuredly, I now handle rogers better, take less offense and in general “manipulate” (in the good way. lol) them better, yet I will still get surprised now and again.
Well, I think I have rambled on sufficiently to warrent a request to have first hand, verification, confirmation, refutation(?), proliferation and any other “ations” of any and all of what I have spoken of here today. What say readers? If anyone wishes to join me in asking the Progenitor roger to guest write a post or agree to an interview here at GirlieOnThe Edge, I would love to hear from you. Buttcha know what? Even if I don’t hear from my legions of fans, let me go ahead and extend the offer forthwith to the man with the rag of all rags to bring his easy chair and other such accoutrements to this place and set a spell.