All I need is some shelter and a shot – at the edge

… 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.   

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “All I need is some shelter and a shot – at the edge

  1. Clairepeek

    there is a first time with everything, I read your post while listening to Morten Harket’s new album “out of my Hands”… very, hmm how shall I put it… captivating and he was louder than you for a while, but your voice was kinda louder in the end…

    as you well know, I am also living with a roger and I conquer with the roger using the clark as a mean to validate his own belonging to the herd… but… as I try and often mention to the Jonas (who is the roger in question) that he belongs to the acceptable social mass, he looks at me with the question mark on his face like: what the hell are you talking about?… he knows though that it is the case, but will never consciously acknowledge such a herd-belonging unless – here is the twist – it is a statement that comes from his own deductions. Rogers are much more complicated than one thinks… emotional…

    now, I need to ask because of the post I wrote for tomorrow… I am a clark (obvious) yet I feel and that is the main fuel to my way of thinking… doesn’t that make me a roger then? I know the answer, but it is just for the sake of argument here… plus for once I am the first here so, I take my time…

    intriguing rogers, I’d love to read an interview of THE Roger… progenitor of course.

    Like

    1. Have to be honest Claire – I am glad I was “louder”. LOL
      Now how can I say this delicately? Your roger, like mine and every other roger often play the “what the hell are you talking about?” game. And I will tell you that part of the answer is because we are clarks. In a roger’s mind, being the blue monkeys that we are, we don’t have the qualification of being on a “social register (lol, the Lady comes to mind) to be a “real” or bonafide authority on such things. In spite of external proof of a thing, a roger must first “feel” it (in Jonas’s case the belonging “to the acceptable social mass”). By feeling it, he will own it. It will then be his. Here’s a question for you: have you ever had a conversation of a creative nature with a roger and days later hear that roger tell you about, or refer to what only days before was an idea that you shared with them? Very funny!

      I know you know …..sure you are emotional. clarks are extremely emotional. Emotion is what drives our creative selves. It’s just that we like people are not typically overly demonstrative. What clarks do possess is a ridiculous, almost inhuman control over our emotions. What most people don’t know is that there are times, I think, when we clarks plain old get scared (and a little self-conscious) of what others may think if we really let loose!
      Having an active emotional component (your “main fuel”) does not make you a roger(predominantly). It is simply a facet of your clarklike self that is stronger than your scottian aspect. My brain is not quite as cogent so let me give you this example: I am close to 2 female rogers. One of them appears reserved and non-emotional when in the presence of strangers and exerts a strong control over demonstrative displays of affection and such even among friends and family and yet this person is extremely sensitive. Some might catagorize this as emotional. The other female roger is “classic” in her “emotionality” – very demonstrative, emotional, even volatile. Both rogers but emotion is not the common link.

      Since my brain is not at optimum:( I had better stop while I think I am ahead. lol
      But in parting, let me say I am glad you are excited about THE roger possibly guesting at GirlieOnTheEdge. Please feel free to forward any questions you may have for the Progentior (roger) and stay tuned!
      Thanks for stopping by today Claire:)

      Like

      1. Clairepeek

        Good Morning Girlie ^_^

        You asked: “have you ever had a conversatin of a
        creative nature with a roger and days later hear
        that roger tell you about, or refer to what only
        days before was an idea that you shared with them?”
        My answer: oh yeah! all the time although maybe
        not so obvious. It is indeed extremely funny.

        “I know you know …..sure you are emotional.
        Clarks are extremely emotional. Emotion is what
        drives our creative selves. It’s just that we
        like people are not typically overly demonstrative. ”
        I just realized how true that was and yet, I am
        overly demonstrative when I am happy… almost
        annoying really. I guess this is the only feeling
        that is safe to share I guess
        (evidently with my roger only).

        “inhuman control over our emotions” which ultimately
        get bottled up and potentially becomes hazardous
        material… very explosive when the bottle’s full.

        all that was about clarks so here’s my question
        to Roger for the interview:

        “For a roger to feel it is to own it”: how would
        our own progenitor Roger elaborate on that?

        Girlie, again, a great post!

        Like

        1. Good morning Claire:D

          From the top: No, never obvious which is the
          part that always amuses me. The innocence,
          the look – the “what?” you get from
          them. Classic!
          You state a little discussed aspect of the clarklike personality – “very explosive when the bottle’s full”.
          A very good way of saying it takes an awful lot of
          something to push a clark to their “breaking” point.
          Again the light shines upon a clark’s ability/need/?
          for control.

          Love your question for THE roger! As you see by
          his comment, he has agreed to guest here at
          GirlieOnTheEdge so we will be busy, busy collecting
          more questions from as many people as possible in
          the next couple of days. If you know of anyone
          who has a question, even Jonas lol!, send it in.

          Have an excellent day today Claire!

          Like

  2. clarkscottroger

    admirable topication with this Post. (Additional compliments, given the annoyingly static nature of the typed sentence…) But the most important effort around the Doctrine is to acquire literacy in The Languages of the Three.

    best to think of medium of manifestation (of the three personality types)..as you rightly pointed out:
    clarks think
    scotts act
    rogers feel

    …further, if we agree that all lifeforms will have a drive to ‘make their mark’ on their world…. someone on a recent Saturday Night Drive used the expression ‘create ripples’ that everyone would want to know that their existance is noted will make an effort to affect the world around them

    (now we also know that we all exist within a personal reality, with a worldview that the Doctrine refers to as being a clark or a scott or a roger. How the individual manifests this effort to be ackniwledged depends on the nature of their reality… clarks think and understand and (try) to find a way to understand. they manifest their drive in intellectual/rational terms
    scotts manifest (this drive) in direct action, i.e. shouting yelling ‘being noticed’
    and rogers…theirs is the medium of emotion

    I will stop now

    Like

    1. Thank you.
      You have made simple, a non-complicated thing. Doctrine literacy can be challenging at times. Perhaps you would add something to my response to Claire?
      I would also extend to you the invitation to forward me any questions you may like to have answered should the Progenitor roger agree to be my guest here at GirlieOnTheEdge.

      Like

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