Anankelogy Principles

The more you assert that you disagree with another, the more you both tend to remain mutually defensive. The more mutually guarded, the less likely either will open up about the inflexible needs behind the flexibly expressed stances. The more you dig down to each other’s vulnerably experienced inflexible needs, the more you get to what drives your differences. And the less cause for you to debate.

The more you react towards threats from others, the more you expose your inability to effectively express, address and resolve each other’s affected needs. You could appear weak. The more you stand humbly firm while threatened, and give yourself a chance to understand and relate to their inflexible needs, without reacting in self-protection, the more you give opportunity to resolve each other’s needs.

The more you feel threatened by a foe, the more tempted you may be to protect yourself with some violent act. This could include nonphysical violence, such as verbal slurs or ignoring your commitment to them. The longer your vital needs go painfully unmet, the more urgent you feel you must react. This is when you must pause and reflect to avoid creating more pain for others and for yourself.

The more you honor your responsibility to respect the needs of others, the more they can honor your right for them to respect your needs. The less you honor their needs, the less they can honor yours. A responsibility speaks to your respect for others. A right speaks to their respect toward you. Wellness is psychosocial. And the standard applied sets the standard replied.

The more you must settle for less than fully resolving needs, the more dependent you become on alternatives for partially easing your needs. The less you can consistency access what fully resolves your needs, the more you get pulled, along with countless others, into what anankelogy calls ‘symfunctionality’. It serves as a gateway to painful dysfunction, when even fewer of your needs can resolve.

The more you assert a certain level of moral or ethical behavior, the more likely such a level gets mirrored back to you. The more you sink to the lower standard of objectifying your foes, the more inclined they are to objectify you. The more you assert the higher standard of mutually respecting each other’s needs, the more your foes may be inclined and perhaps inspired to do the same.

The more you oppose others to the point of resisting their inflexible needs, the more you provoke their defenses. They dig in their heels, just as you naturally would if they opposed your inflexible needs. Sticking with rational arguments that lets you avoid vulnerably engaging messy needs not easily changed. The more you react to what they cannot change, the more they push back with what you oppose. You insist they’re making the wrong rational choice, as you ignore their prioritizing needs. Even if winning the argument, you end up getting more of what you claim to resist.

The more you are hostile towards others you oppose, the more hostile and defensive they are inclined to be toward you. Mutual hostilities result in fewer resolved needs than mutual respect. The more you engage others in mutual respect, the more opportunity to resolve each other’s needs. Mutual respect draws out more of potential to support each other, and to love one another.

The more aggressively opposed by others, the easier to get self-righteous, to defend your beliefs or actions as just. The less this wins your arguments, the more inclined to become arrogant, to assert your rights and ignore their needs. The more you try to save yourself, the more you lose. The more you drop your guard and invite them in to see your vulnerable side, the closer you can save the day.

The more authority extends to every detail in our lives, the more it risks slipping into overreach. No human has any legitimate authority over your naturally existing needs. No authority can declare you must now float in midair at odds with gravity. No authority can change your need for water or your need for acceptance or for security. No one can change what you naturally require, not even yourself.

Authority earns its trust the more its actions or inactions results in resolving needs. The more its actions or unexpected inactions results in unresolved needs, experienced as pain and diminished ability to function, the less it can be trusted to impact needs. Legitimacy of any authority correlates with how it impacts the exposed needs of the vulnerable.

The longer institutional authority exists, the more it tends to shift from primarily serving its founding purpose to increasingly serving itself at the expense of its founding purpose. When trying to coerce you to serve its ends at odds with your inflexible needs, you understandably acquiesce to avoid its wrath. But the more authority creates the conditions for its own necessity, the less legitimate it can be.