Purpose

We often are able to see that there are generational differences between the music, books,   art, and other activities that we enjoy. While we also may make more of them than they warrant, they are there, and they can sometimes be enjoyably – or alarmingly – revealing.

But one of the reasons they generally don’t mean as much as we think they do is that they pale in comparison to the differences between cultures. Indeed, even the way those intra-cultural generational differences develop and express are themselves inescapably distinct features of the parent culture of the generations.

This site is a place for looking at the cultural artifacts we create – particularly but not exclusively music and books – as well as the methods and devices we create to approach and enjoy them. Many of the posts here will be more or less straightforward reviews, but many others will also consider the peculiar ways the reviewed items are in fact artifacts of our culture, and what that says about them and us.

While this is a place for topics not suited to discussion on my main site at Managing Leadership, some reviews and essays may be cross-posted there.

For an enterprise like this, it is worth touching on the topic of philosophy. I am not particularly political or ideological; most of my thinking on these topics arises from my strong support for free-market capitalism and the uniquely American experience with the concept of individual sovereignty and its relationship with that of self-governance.

To be sure, this suggests some likely political and ideological proclivities – but it would not do to be too sure about what those are generally, not to mention what they prove to be with respect to particular issues. So, a word about consistency:

We all know what Ralph Waldo Emerson had to say about it . . .

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

This is taken, of course, to mean a variety of things often more consistent with the user’s predilections than, perhaps, with Emerson’s intent. I believe it means not that we shouldn’t be consistent – just that we shouldn’t be foolishly consistent.

We should be, do, and say what each event we are presented with suggests to us, what comes naturally to us – rather than bend our present attitude to the apparent trajectory of our past pronouncements. If we do the former, perhaps our true trajectory – our consistency of true integrity – will be revealed to those who seek to perceive it – including ourselves.

Please bear with me as I make that effort myself, hopefully with your participation, on these pages.