W

wellness campaign

(n.) [wellness campaign terminology] A specialized service offered by need-response that focuses on resolving the client's identified wellness need(s) while respecting the identified needs of others. Instead of trying to relieve pain, a wellness campaign aims to resolve needs to remove cause for pain, and reach more potential.

Unlike private healthcare of psychotherapy, the client makes public their wellness goal and invites others to support it. Instead of seeking to change the individual to adjust to life as it is, a wellness campaign seeks to change relationship dynamics to be more responsive to each other's needs. This includes incentivizing the socially powerful to demonstrably be more responsive to the vulnerable needs of those they impact.

Unlike legal approaches by attorneys and political activists, the intent is not to win at another's expense but to raise everyone's functioning level. Instead of conformity to interpreted laws, a wellness campaign incentivizes all involved to go beyond minimal legal requirements to resolve the needs laws exist to serve. This includes incentivizing authority figures to rely less on impersonal laws and more on earning legitimacy by enabling us all to resolve our needs.

A wellness campaign goes through four to five phases, each meant to address one of the four levels of human problems. The campaign typically concludes at the end of the final phase with the client reaching their wellness goal. Some campaigns can transition into other campaign types.

Three types of wellness campaigns currently exist; 1) case campaign to address the client's wellness need; 2) project campaign to address wellness needs of those similarly situated; and 3) movement campaign as a coalition of project campaigns.

wellness offender

(n.) [wellness campaign terminology] Anyone interfering or resisting the resolution of identified needs after provided ample opportunity to report any impact on their own needs. See resolution path. See anti-wellness.

wellness paradox

(n.) REFUNCTION. The apparent contradiction that improved functioning requires something profoundly wise that at first seems unwise, or at least challenges conventional norms and widely adopted beliefs.

Examples:

1. Personal responsibility depends upon social responsibility from others; social responsibility depends upon the personal responsibility of us all.

2. The best rational understanding integrates the emotional prioritization of needs defying rationality. “If facts don’t care about feelings, then our need-prioritizing feelings don’t care about our rational facts.”

3. Effective generalizing starts on the foundation of relevant specifics.

4. Pain can only be fully removed by first embracing it and letting it report the threat to be removed. Merely relieving pain typically invites more pain.

5. The best way to oppose another’s actions is to first accept their inflexible needs prompting such questionable actions.

Consider Kohlberg’s levels of moral development, and the results of prioritizing postconventional morality of properly resolving each other’s inflexible needs over conventional morality of external ethics. This can counter wisdom resistant conventionality below.

wellness resistant conventionality

(n.) DEFUNCTION. The limitation imposed on full functioning of human life by remaining attached to widely accepted views that are easier to understand and mutually supported. Often reinforced by social norms that prioritizes symfunctionality over peakfunctional potential.

Examples:

1. Everyone must take personal responsibility for their choices and actions (without attention to the real limitations of options for those choices) and stop blaming the “system” for their personal problems (which can prompt false guilt, anxiety and depression from not being able to overcome external limitations).

2. We are rational thinkers who must assert reason over our emotions (which generalizes all emotionsas irrational instead of intensified when needs go unmet) and seek to control nature with our minds by reducing our choices to cognitive processes in which we have control (which knowingly ignores all that exists outside of human control).

3. You must not overthink matters too much and accept explanations that can ease our dissonance without too much trouble (which tends to solidify into overgeneralizations that overlook relevant specifics shaping our lives).

4. Pain is bad and best avoided (which typically leaves in place the threat such pain reports, ensuring less functionality and more pain as your body insists you remove that threat) and everyone ‘s right to privacy is more important than communal values (which pulls us all into isolation and disabling alienation).

5. We must oppose those who are wrong because those who don’t take a stand on political issues will fall for anything (which neglects the distinction between inflexible needs and flexible responses to those needs, then perpetuates conflict as each side must dig in their heals to guard the inflexible needs and inflexible priorities they cannot change).

Consider Kohlberg’s levels of moral development, and recognize the impact from a culture of prioritizing conventional morality anchored in external ethics over postconventional morality committed to properly resolving each other’s inflexible needs. This exists contrary to wisdom paradox above.