The ordeal of the undecidable

Decision is the ability to form firm opinions and stick by them.
Decision in the world of justice is something that “cuts”, “divides”, it is supposed have in its fold the “initiative” to read understand and interpret the rule .
But what do I mean when I say “it cuts it divides”? It cuts because it’s supposed to be equitable and proportional.
This decision which cuts and divides also gives birth to the concept of the undecidable which is not merely an “oscillation” between two contradictory and valid rules it is also an experience which forces us to take account of the various dynamics involved in the process (e.g. in a particularly difficult trial one takes into consideration various dynamics of a situation and then comes to, if not a correct, the most valid decision).
A decision which doesn’t suffer the ordeal of undecision is not an autonomous decision at all its just a natural unfolding of an ongoing process, it s not just and fair, because if you don’t think and debate over any decision then you are only going with the flow (e.g. if I want to buy a pair Nike shoes I need to debate with myself about the viability of the purchase, if I don’t I am just falling for the Capitalist dream).
Even if we do arrive to a seemingly correct and just decision, the decision doesn’t remain the same it is engaged in a dynamic process and is reinventing itself and is therefore no longer just according to the context, decision in fact was never at all completely just, either it was never according to any rule and even if it was the rule could have been colored by other factors and was therefore not “guaranteed”. Coming back to my Nike example, even if I do argue myself into buying the Nike shoes (bringing in the durability, comfort factors) it will be because of a predecision , i.e. I will argue with myself only to convince myself and not otherwise.
Therefore the unbearable agony of undecision is not just a process to come to a conclusive decision it’s the only way to engage in a discussion involving the pros and cons of a given situation, so what if its end product (the decision) is still tainted by discrepancies it would at least be less tainted and coloured than an undebated one.