Skip to main content

Communication and Discourse Concerns for the Modern Age

   How are we to bring up delicate or sensitive subject matters to one another in conversation without offending people or turning them off? Society today tends to have a blanch and a blush about certain subject matters. When I consider some of my previous blogs, it is those specific subjects sometimes which cause a blanch and a blush and make conversation harder between people. The answer is to have direct and logical conversational procedures, operating upon a principle of trust, such as I have seen in the libretto (words) to Mozart's Don Giovanni, the opera I loved as a teenager, and as an adult. The Italian libretto was written by Lorenzo Da Ponte. That's a funny name for him, because the words get right to the point. Examine the following conversation between Leporello and the Don, translated to English.

"DON GIOVANNI
Come on now, hurry up. What do you want?

LEPORELLO
It's a very important matter

DON GIOVANNI
I believe you

LEPORELLO
Most important

DON GIOVANNI
So much the better, out with it.

LEPORELLO
Promise you won't become angry

DON GIOVANNI
I swear it on my honour, as long as you don't speak of the Commandant.

LEPORELLO
Are we alone?

DON GIOVANNI
It looks like it

LEPORELLO
No one can hear us?

DON GIOVANNI
Come on!

LEPORELLO
May I tell you everything freely?

DON GIOVANNI
Yes

LEPORELLO
Well then, my dear master, the life you are leading is that of a knave!

DON GIOVANNI
Racal, you dare... "

   This is how to handle it. It is very efficient and direct. It only works if there is trust, loyalty, and honor between people, which I feel is lacking these day. People are generally afraid to deal with material that has been on a tight lockdown, simply because it's been on a tight lockdown. Sometimes the material is completely benign, and it's on a tight lockdown. I feel strongly that people have to have more efficient conversational methods somehow that allow for back and forth exchange where one person is not dominating. When you look at Leporello and Don Giovanni, it has a perfect balance between the two, and Leporello is even his liege. There is an efficiency and back-and-forth which is excellent.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Personality Types and the Fall of Man Argument

   There will be some who will want to say that I was being illogical or unbiblical when I wrote the post about how personality differences get misunderstood.  Their argument is basically that differing personalities are a consequence of the Fall of Man- a consequence of the DNA getting disordered.  Therefore, they will say, that people who don't fit the "perfect personality" are sinful. God created one man, they will say, with a perfect personality (Adam).  In truth, they can cite Adam, Eve, and Jesus.  That argument is not correct, and I will stand my ground on this.    The reason why they are not correct is because they are making the unwarranted assumption all of Adam's descendants would have had the same personality had the Fall never happened. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that had the Fall never happened, there would have been different kinds of people with different personalities, it just would have been a more perfect world. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nice Dissenting Opinion on the Fairness of the Criminal Justice System

   I was recently having a conversation with someone about the possibility for unreliability and/or unfairness in the criminal justice system. I was reminded of this quote from a Supreme Court case which is from Justice Harry Blackmun's dissenting opinion. The case was Darden v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 168 (1986). Obviously he's talking about the Supreme Court level, but if this could be said about their accuracy, then how shall we communicate about fairness at the trial court level? "JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Although the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant only "a fair trial [and] not a perfect one,"  Lutwak v. United States,   344 U. S. 604 ,  344 U. S. 619  (1953);  Bruton v. United States,   391 U. S. 123 ,  391 U. S. 135  (1968), this Court has stressed repeatedly in the decade since  Gregg v. Georgia,   428 U. S. 153  (1976), that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is Anybody Thinking Whatsoever?

See my comments below......    Let me explain further. According to Catholic dogma/teaching, they must oppose abortion "in all forms."  See the Catholic Catechism, which clearly states in 2272  "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life"  Therefore, Catholics CANNOT vote for Hillary Clinton. If they don't like Donald Trump they have to find an independent party they agree with and vote for that person. They would be sinning according to their own religious worldview if they actually voted for Hillary Clinton.  link to Catholic Catechism  (on abortion)    Catholics should also consider the Catholic sin of "scandal." It is a sin for them to vote for Hillary Clinton. To quote the Catholic Catechism, "Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the c...
Post a Comment
Read more