I read this today:
Access to Mueller’s report and evidence may be guided by Congress, Clinton email case
Then I read about the Legislative (L), Executive (E) and Judiciary (J) here.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-legislature-executive-and-judiciary This link explains the roles of the three functions: the legislative, the executive and the Judiciary in the context of a country.
Now let's consider a person instead of a country or an organization.
A person also has the three roles inside them. There is the L which consists of the rules that they espouse. The E which is the way he acts which may or may not be largely in line with the L. I am talking about a person whose rules as they profess are out of sync with their actions.
The L could consist of rules such as "I am honest", "I like to help people", "I am courageous" etc. The E could do things which are often at variance with the professed rules.
My question is: How does such a person manage that conflict? Is there a J that operates in that person which strives to remedy this conflict?
What will cause the J to be involved when the E and L in a person diverge? Maybe a friend points out this issue. Maybe the person realizes himself while introspecting.
If such a Judiciary were to exist in a person, it would adjudicate that conflict and decide in favor of either the Legislative or the Executive. If the E wins, then the E perhaps might let it go or might have to change its rules or laws to be more in sync with the action. If the L wins, then the E might realize that it had better follow the L better henceforth.
If such conflicts are unresolved, in the worst case, the E and L would continue to be divergent with the person either at peace with the state of affairs or be troubled.
Considering that E, L, J are all embedded in the same person, maybe they are not strictly independent of each other. There is considerable overlap of all the three. The one that is in charge is the E. The action is not always decided based on one's rules as professed. Invoking the J is always unpleasant to the E because the trigger for that invocation is because the E has violated the E, in the first place - which itself is very difficult for a person to acknowledge.
J is what is commonly referred to as our conscience. For some people this is strong. In such a case, the J can kill a person by constantly bullying them for having violated their own L.
Where it's weak, a person is largely run by an E with the L serving as just a mouthpiece and the J largely absent. The absence of J leads to extraordinary (could be good or bad) behavior. In a person, a J cannot be forced to exist. At least I am not sure how.
But in an organization or a country, a J can be inculcated. The murder of Khashoggi in Turkey by Saudis is an indication of the absence of a J or of the absence of an appropriate L. The presence of a strong E and J is indicative of a good environment.
A classic example of men's J not being at work is brought out by the author here: It’s Not That Men Don’t Know What Consent Is https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/opinion/sunday/sexual-consent-college.html. The L in men understands consent from the woman is needed, the E kinda disregards it while the J just takes a nap.
Of course women are equally at fault when they coerce men to do something (usually something other than sex, maybe related to shopping, vacations, activities for children) and there the rule of consent is not as strictly enforced. Because such violations of a non-sexual nature aren't deemed criminal or even important. Coercion (nonsexual) is more often perpetrated by feminine persons.
But in an organization or a country, a J can be inculcated. The murder of Khashoggi in Turkey by Saudis is an indication of the absence of a J or of the absence of an appropriate L. The presence of a strong E and J is indicative of a good environment.
A classic example of men's J not being at work is brought out by the author here: It’s Not That Men Don’t Know What Consent Is https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/opinion/sunday/sexual-consent-college.html. The L in men understands consent from the woman is needed, the E kinda disregards it while the J just takes a nap.
Of course women are equally at fault when they coerce men to do something (usually something other than sex, maybe related to shopping, vacations, activities for children) and there the rule of consent is not as strictly enforced. Because such violations of a non-sexual nature aren't deemed criminal or even important. Coercion (nonsexual) is more often perpetrated by feminine persons.
No comments:
Post a Comment