Information has to be looked at independently.
Courts of justice rely on information gathered by the investigators to deliver justice. Why do you need a court when it is the investigators who are gathering all the information? The Investigative agencies are as independent as the judiciaries are, aren’t they? Why is a barrister or an attorney required to present someone’s case to a judge? Wouldn’t the claimant and the respondent suffice?
You are not as clever as you think, are you? No, nobody is. No information is too small to be overlooked. The planet is not a stranger to unemployment, so it should not be hard to find people to look into each information collected. But that is not going to work, is it? It will not work, because information are to be interpreted. And by the time you take a look, the picture would have rearranged itself. In the practical world, empiricism and innatism are not contradictory to each other. And they are not mutually exclusive.
Take a look at your mind. Do you know what’s going on in that mind of yours? You have no clear distinction to the state of affairs in there; a head full of jumbled priorities at the best. Do you know why? Because you are always a respondent, caught off guard, trying to save the day. It is not a great life, is it? It does not have to remain that way forever. Get your house in order. Open that chest full of jumbled priorities before the next claimant arrives. Now sort them out; put things where they belong.
Tough? Simple; ask for help. And when you find help, don’t think you can have it your way. To sort out means to know what’s in your mind without your knowledge, which means you will be less susceptible to getting caught off guard. It also means you will learn to differentiate between your head and your heart. The court room will become active in your life and you cannot adjourn it indefinitely, which means you will go in there only after careful consideration of everything, independently. This is the art of decision making.
Swastham Shantam Sampurnam