|Published: 2013-Sep-11 09:36|
In one adaptation of the story of Pinocchio, the character of Jiminy Cricket is assigned as his conscience. I think that this is a marvellous parable for agnostics, but is only a good start.
I think that the story of a wooden boy with flees would have been better, (though why would a marionette have flees? More importantly, why flees?
Well, they are there but invisible. There can easily be, (and usually are) many of them. With the anthropomorphism of a children's story it is easy to suggest that one or more of the flees has some sort of dominance at any given time. As the story progresses that hierarchy may change. Possibly most importantly they can alter our protagonists behaviour despite being so small and seemingly irrelevant.
This would give the narrative the flexibility to discuss knowing that something is held to be legal wrong, (driving above the speed limit) but cultural-accepted-within-limits, (about 10% higher on the largest roads seems to be accepted by many people) leaving our flees, (mind) with knowing that it is wrong and acceptable at the same time.
( Maybe a wooden cat? Chat and her flees. )
So why else might we want flees? Well if Jiminy was squished it would be sad, but not so if one of our flees was harping on about some minor slight, "That person didn't use their car indicators, so I'm 0.0001 seconds later than I could have been." Then the lead character could work on their mental health by psychically squishing the flees that either talk drivel or are negatively distracting.
We can chose which mental dialogue to focus upon and which to ignore. I would like more examples of exercises where this is practised.