Using more than one voice to share information

I think it’s cool that someone like Royster also agrees with sharing information.  It’s kind of unfortunate that certain social constructions tend to make writing so political and bureaucratic; and, because language is intrinsic to one’s identity, there’s always some sort of fear or concern of how we affect others as well as their reaction towards us.  However, if we continue to concern ourselves with notions of helping one another, not just because it’s the moral thing to do, but for the sake of humanity rather than running off the deep end wishing to solely self-persevere, then we as humans would become active in promoting success for everyone by “operating with honor, respect, and reasonable codes of conduct” (33-4).  Some of this seems rather cliché, but better to say something than nothing at all.

This is a cool segue way into the second subject – speaking with global intent.  Again, this is idealistic, but I’ve often tried to, at the very least, gear my rationale on any subject with a more universal approach to satisfy a wide audience.  And, by doing so often results in using more than one of my authentic “surface voices”.  Whatever is chosen, the thing that matters most is the rationale - whether in a formal or an informal language or tone - is understood by many as possible; however, the problem with this ideal is that often cultural terms become conflated and fused result in loss of distinction or significance in the message itself.  Yet, as a scholar of human nature I strive to think such a feat is plausible and entirely incredible to perform.