top of page


The spectrum of 'choice' spans from full sovereignty to bondage. Swinging in between these far corners is the instinct of individual survival which carries a mix of the conscious, subconscious and unconscious state of mind.

The topic of 'choice' is often manipulated to diminish responsibility in contemporary circles. There are many attempts to blur the varieties of choice application with the worrisome undertone being dishonesty. The good thing is that every claim has its respective consequence as a matter of fact.

For instance, sovereignty implies consciousness, awareness, responsibility, capability, self-control, wellness, viability, strength, might, skills, authority, independence and absolute choice. Regardless of how you dissect the detail substrate of self-control, you still end up with the complete ability to plan and make 'choice'. Lawyers, psychologists and psychiatrists may twist and fine-tune the dial suitably to partisan frequencies but to err in the face of facts is a matter of 'choice' as well. Choice can be deployed for pious, charitable, noble, foolish, stupid, vile or wicked deeds but it has nothing to do with the doer's survival. Sovereign choices can be about wishes, desires, wants with an insatiable listing. Interestingly denial is also choice.

A shift along the spectrum will stain the canvass with the issue of 'instinct' which in itself entails fluidity but not necessarily shrewdness, talk less of diabolical intent. The level of innocence pertaining to 'instinct' can be determined by age, maturity, experience, habits, traits and the historic evidence of the specific individual. The specific meaning of 'instinct' is the biological mechanism or reflex for survival of the very individual. The application of choice with regards to instinct is partial and temporary. The innocence of instinct lies in its obvious predictability. In order to survive, an individual needs to breathe air even though the person could willfully hold breath temporarily. Breath-holding can be a temporary application of choice. Hunger is an example of instinct but to steal food is choice. In a nutshell, instinct is the subconscious shade of the spectrum of choice.

The other extreme of the end of the spectrum gathers a cloud of misfortune which can shed drizzles or storms depending on the extent of lack of choice or lack of self-control. This shade of the spectrum is generally a bad omen because it implies madness, illness, unconsciousness, bondage, slavery, crude dependence, addiction to the point of servitude, hopelessness, helplessness and danger. When people claim that they do not have choice with regards to their actions, it is usually a filthy disguise that showcases the level of falsehood. An individual can make a choice whether morally right or wrong with regards to their actions and decisions but to claim lack of choice is a confession of madness, illness or bondage. It is quite interesting to note that the actions that stem from this dreaded end of the spectrum are seldom necessary for any individual's survival just in case the argument tilts towards blurring it with the shade of 'instinct'.

Responsibility is claiming your choice and the consequence since foreknowledge usually precedes the action. Like damp in the heat of the sun, opinions fade when facts appear.

bottom of page