….why paisley???

the following is the fourth installment of a series that speaks about internal change.. you may navigate the series by beginning with the post entitled the beast and work your way back to this post,, or use the links in the footnote of this installment…

Voices by *JasonJacenko on deviantART

we all have little voices in our head..  the most audible of those voices is one we commonly refer to as the conscience,, or the voice of reason.. the prevailing role of the conscience,  is to impart ethical (inborn) and/or moral (learned) judgment.. in other words,, the conscience weighs out our thoughts and/or actions not only against our inborn sense of right and wrong,, but also the adaptations that have been made to those basic guidelines based on our own individual life experience..

so in essence, the conscience is made up of a chorus of voices.. a myriad of tiny tongues working together to reflect reason in all its multifaceted glory.. for the most part,, we don’t seem to notice the different tonal quality of those individual voices.. they exist in harmony.. the opposing voices of right and wrong remain unequivocal.. the voice of right reinforced by the proven benefits of partaking in right behaviors, and the voice of wrong regurgitated at appropriate times in order to protect us from making the same mistake twice..

however,, there are times when one or more of those voices develops an inflated sense of self.. it is no longer content to remain in the chorus.. it fancies its self over qualified for such a seemingly menial position.. and much like the christians believe the serpent sought to usurp gods ultimate authority when he suggested to adam and eve that they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,, this voice will slither its way into ones internal dialogue and seek to disavow the voice of reason as spoken by the conscience,, by infecting it with a flawed logic all its own..

the key word herein being, logic.. this extrinsic voice becomes, an arduous litigator.. it seeks not to disprove the argument of the conscience,, but rather to blind the ‘judge’ with its own malevolent brilliance.. it makes a case so seemingly based on fact,, that even the conscience,, tho it continues to adamantly voice objections,, cannot give adequate cause.. however,, in its closing arguments, this voice always imparts upon the ‘jury’ (which in this case is the individual) but two viable courses of action.. it calls upon its host to either disregard the case of the conscience all together and follow the path that it has so luminously laid out,, or stalemate..

it is indeed arguable that there is a third course of action available.. that one could still opt to side with what ones conscience knows to be right.. that one could drown out this renegade voice,, side with the voice of reason,, and be done with it.. however,, in order for that argument to be valid,, we must first examine,, the path thru which this voice originally entered the consciousness…  and we must understand that once this voice has made it’s presence known,, there are no longer but two voices to be reckoned with.. in fact,, there are three.. the voice of right,, the voice of wrong,, and the voice of the beast..

part 1: the beast
part 2: common ground
part 3: metamorphosis
part 4: voices

This entry was posted on Monday, November 10th, 2008 at 6:46 am and is filed under life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.