Hi John,

I think this past week has been highly successful in broadening the scope of sources/materials for interpretation.  Especially if we are going to style “leadership” as concept that has to be explored as “culture”.   Then many things that relate to this study also relate to other human activities/endeavors/forms of production/performances.  

But, there several hurdles or impediments to this “broadening”.  Some of these are part of the cultural we’re part of (embedded norms for “how to see” and what we might do as a result of that seeing”).   I think in a way our culture dulls people from actions of interpretation.   It makes them passive consumers of other people’s production.   Usually at a price and with a dulled sort of consciousness to the insight that they could be doing this for free on their own.  

And that spells out a kind of divide in the DA students and faculty as well.   It’s the difference between actively “doing” and “interpreting” versus a different kind of doing that’s oriented toward “finding” and “receiving meaning”.  

If there is anything useful to be realized about leadership I think it has to come through actively doing and interpreting.  And that is precisely the dominant mode of good stuff in the arts I think?  Or am I mistaken?  And it doesn’t cost anything since you can do and interpret anything anywhere you are.....   Just like thinking and reflecting.   These are choices.  

Educating is helping people become aware of their ability (LOL) (that they are doomed) to choose and that they themselves are the cultural repository that resists this the most (most often).

Allan

PS  I'm very interested in "Thirteen ways of looking at a blackbird are twelve too many for someone who still believes that facts are born not made, and that differences of perception reduce to differences of opinion."  Clifford Geertz    Especially the last phrase....  it seems very important to me in the activity of the course as we're teaching it.