Anankelogy Principles

Any authoritative power not resolving needs acts more like a coercive force. The more those in position of power serve their own interests at odds with the affected needs of the powerless, the less legitimate their influence. The power of the socially influential only exists because of the deeper power of nature shaping our objective needs. The more any social power invests their social influence to resolve nature-created needs, the more meaningful and legitimate its influence. Otherwise, it’s often guilty of coercive exploitations.

The more those in positions of authority rely in impersonal norms and less engaging social structures, the more they risk imposing some costs not immediately obvious to them. Those under thumb of such pressures tend not to vocalize their frustrations, to avoid risking retribution. The more an authority realizes it invisibly extracts such value, the better it can retain its legitimacy.

The more internally motivated and enabled to honor the needs of others, the less you have to be externally motivated by pressures from impersonal authority. But where needs persist unresolved, some authority typically emerges to address the gap. When becoming routine, such authority risks disincentivizing our mutual motivations. That risks diminishing our mutual respect and our love.

Constructs of law serve as a metaphor for needs. Apart from exposed needs, there are no human laws. The more enforcement of laws goes against what others inflexibly need, the less measurably legitimate that enforcement of law. Violent law enforcement that provokes you to defend your threated safety, for example, slips easily into illegitimacy when authority expects passive compliance. You cannot blindly obey any law that ultimately denies you of your ability to obey laws.

The more you have a particular need that runs counter to a particular law, the less that law can actually govern you. Laws can only guide your actions toward respecting the needs of others. The objective fact of your core needs literally governs your behavior more than the relatively subjective constructs of law. Forcing yourself to fit some law at odds with your inflexible needs could result in anxiety and depression.

The more we count on impersonal laws to resolve our impersonal needs, the more disappointed we likely will be. Laws can only inform us how to respect the needs of others. Even when motivating us out of threat of fines or jail time, we must internalize some way to act on the intent of such laws. The further we move beyond the law’s harm reduction minimal standard, the more we can fully resolve our needs.

Laws remain rather vague to apply widely, often focusing on harm reduction. The more dependent on laws to reduce harm or a perceived threat of harm, the more you become a legalist instead of responsive. You then become less attentive to fully resolving needs. Only by properly resolving each other’s needs can we remove threats of harm. The more you acclimate to laws, public policies and social norms to deliver familiar forms of comfort, the more you resist the more responsive who endure the natural discomforts of fully resolving needs. The more the responsive go beyond minimal standards of law to fully resolve needs, the more legalists push back to protect their familiar pain-avoidant norms.

The less we personally know about the needs of others, the more we rely on impersonal laws to guide our actions toward them. Where emotions personally convey our needs, established norms impersonally convey our needs. Laws are kept vague to apply in various situations, and impersonal to avoid favoritism. Consequently, laws cannot convey our needs as powerfully as our emotions.

The more both sides to a policy debate resort to generalizing, the less both sides address what either side specifically needs. Messy political processes often produce compromise that disappoint both sides. Adversarial justice does little to address the specific needs fueling adjudicated conflicts. Neither adjudicated or political side can fully resolve their affected needs. Or remove their pain. Or fully function. The results often help the norm enforcers more than those these norms exist to serve. You can be legally right, and still be empirically wrong. Which legally privileges damaging wellness outcomes.

Our understanding of anything naturally begins with a generalized overview. Then we drill down to specifics the more relevant to our needs. Or we latch onto comforting generalizations to ease the pain of our unmet needs. We then trust unsafe generalizations, which dodges the specifics essential to resolve our needs and remove our pain. Love liberates us. Love upholds your innate value to fully resolve your needs. Love inspires us to honor the needs of others as our own. Love remains your go-to generalization to thrive.

When confronted with something that hits close to home, it’s easy to then intellectualize it. To avoid discomfort of being vulnerable to others, we often prioritize rational knowledge over the less rational and messy side of being fully human. But flip the script. Go beyond trying to intellectually understand the things we do by trying to better understand each other. Then observe the power of love do some amazing things.

The more you can effectively resolve your needs while supporting others to resolve theirs, the less cause for human authority to intervene. Such authorities typically emerge to address those needs not already resolved. The more you can stay atop of your needs, while engaging and supporting others to resolve their needs, you negate the role of impersonal authorities in your life.