Search Results

When violence seems the only answer, quickly rethink the question. < Back E06 Conflict Principle List of all principles When violence seems the only answer, quickly rethink the question. Image: Pixabay - ELG21 (click on meme to see source image) Summary 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. Description Which do you think is more likely? It’s better to strike preemptively than be struck down and not get back up. OR It’s better to not react violently as too often a violent reaction spins out of control. Anankelogy False urgency gets us into trouble. A skewed perception tempts us to see a threat where none actually exists. Or is not at menacing as assumed. A quick fix can break something long-term. Sometimes we act too soon. Anger provokes a premature reaction. We react to situations better suited for a thoughtful response. Regret soon pours in. Anankelogy steps outside of conflict to take a less partial view. Anankelogy prioritizes being descriptive over being normative . In other words, to carefully observe all sides (i.e., descriptive) to a conflict over favoring an immediate response (i.e., normative). Indulgent side-taking prioritizes being normative over being descriptive . Its lack of discipline creates conditions where fewer needs resolved. Painfully unresolved needs can prompt more violence. Violence too easily begets violence . Anankelogy identifies the pressing needs, and how they’re experienced, to better understand and then end the violence. Anankelogy instills the discipline (i.e., delaying gratification) to attend to these screaming needs even while others demand we go to war. The first casualty of war, so the saying goes, is the truth. The more desperate to relieve pain, the more eager to act upon errant beliefs. No time to reflect when you feel a gun pointed at your head. Even if no gun is really there. Need-response Need-response illuminates each other’s deprioritization blind spots . The more you prioritize one set of needs over another, the less aware of a different natural priority of needs . You may presume those serving a set of needs at odds with your own are clearly in the wrong. That presumption is wrong when applied to unchosen natural priority of needs. Before you react, it’s best to separate out the inflexible needs from flexible responses to them. Many fights, battles and wars could by duly avoided with this disciplined approach to conflict. Unfortunately, we tend to rush headlong into opposition without the slightest idea what we’re getting ourselves into. Reactive Problem Premature opposition , the rush to take a stance against others prior to relating to the underserved needs, creates the very condition you ostensibly oppose. What you reactively resist you reflexively reinforce . They cannot change their inflexible needs to suit your flexible responses. In any sustained violent conflict, both sides are ultimately wrong. Even in war. Because violence interferes with resolving needs. From an anankelogical perspective, there is no good nor bad except for needs . There is always a potential path to address unresolved needs without violence against one another. Failing to find that route usually ends in a path of destruction for both sides. One side can be less wrong than the other. The American revolutionaries were less wrong when fighting the British trying to force them to pay a tax without Parliamentary representation. The Allies were far less wrong than the Axis powers. But they committed some atrocities as well. Those who fail to identify the other side’s exposed needs that they affect, however remotely, become complicit in the other side’s reaction. They are not responsible for the other’s violent reaction, but they do play a role in limiting the other side’s options. This introduces a higher moral standard many are apt to reject out of hand. Reality could care less if you reject its standards. Those who fail to meet this standard of engaging affected needs tend to repeatedly provoke violence. They lower themselves further morally when trying to use violence to combat this violence. An eye for an eye has left them blind to their own moral quandary. What one wins in war or by violence seldom matches the value of all that gets lost. Responsive Solution Need-response instills the descriptive discipline to distinguish between inflexible needs and what we flexibly do about them. Those failing to stop and ask themselves what inflexible needs are affected during a conflict tend to be among the self-righteous and arrogant . Bring peace by relating to the inflexible needs on all sides to a conflict. No, this isn’t a false balance or bothsidesism. The problem of “bothsidesism ” (or false balance ) never applies to the unchosen natural needs themselves. Only to what we do about them. Likewise, the problem of “whataboutism ” cannot justify ignoring the underlying needs. Only to say “what about the inflexible needs we overlooked”. Mutual respect resolves more needs than mutual defensiveness . Many who denounce bothsidesism and whataboutism conflate flexible responses with the underlying inflexible needs. Premature accusations of bothsidesism and whataboutism tends to serve what anankelogy recognizes as oppo culture , avoidance culture , and the power delusion . Ignoring both side’s needs reinforces the conflict and then traps us in misery. Need-response unpacks this important distinction. Need-response prioritizes resolving needs over easing the pain of such unmet needs. Need-response encourages us to empathize with the needs on both sides without siding with their reactions. Indulgent side-taking and generalizing both side’s responses as equal avoids the discipline of relating to each other’s affected needs. The more you prioritize resolving needs on all sides of a conflict, the less confronted by violence in the long run. When violence seems the only option, now you can ask about the inflexible needs to restore peace. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: Sometimes, I’ve just got to fight and ask most of the questions later. What if using force is the only answer in a tricky situation. I wish our leaders distinguished between inflexible needs and flexible responses. Failing to appreciate this distinction seems to drag us into unnecessary wars. Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

< Back New Mexico Innocence and Justice Project not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next

Glossary A Acknowledged Impactor [AI] (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] A person or entity recognizing they impact another of relatively less social influence more than they are impacted by the other in a social power difference. Prior to acknowledging such potent influence, the AI is regarded as an Ascribed Impactor . adversarialism (n. ) Opposing others largely for the sake of opposition. [Gordon Fellman] adversarialist (n. ) One who opposes others to ostensibly hold them accountable but often to try to subdue them and coerce them to fit one's own interests with little if any regard for their affected inflexible needs . See proper adversarialism and toxic adversarialist . See image of both definitions here . anankelogy (n. ) The disciplined study and understanding of experiencing needs. Ascribed Impactor [AI] (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] A person or entity identified as likely impacting another person or entity of relatively less social influence more than they are impacted by the other in a social power difference. Once publicly recognizing such potent influence, the AI is regarded as an Acknowledged Impactor . A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z < back to glossary menu

A natural need is an objective fact. < Back A01 Foundational Principle List of all principles A natural need is an objective fact. Image: Pixabay – Valiphotos (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you drill down to the beginning of an experienced need, the more you find what exists prior to any human intervention. You don’t merely believe you must have water or that you need a friend, you experience these needs as essential to your capacity to function. Your ability to function after quenching a thirst or leaning on a friend exist independent of subjective feelings, as objective facts. The less your natural needs resolve, the less you can objectively function. Description Which do you think is more likely? Needs are too subjective for any scientific inquiry. OR An aspect of needs exists outside of subjective experience, allowing for scientific inquiry. Anankelogy Anankelogy isolates that part of your needs which occurs outside of any subjective experience of them. You feel thirsty when your body requires more water, but that requirement for water occurs as an objective fact. You only subjectively feel thirsty after the objective fact of your body requiring more water. Likewise, you feel lonely when requiring help from others to do things you objectively cannot do for yourself. If you cannot get anyone to help you climb out of hole, your ability to continue functioning as before objectively diminishes. Needs come first . Emotions follow to convey such needs . Once the need fully resolves, there’s no longer any cause for such emotion . Every experienced need first emerges as an objective fact about your ability to function. Your body then reports such needs in your subjective experience of emotions. Your emotions suggest what you can quickly do to ease that need, if necessary. Often with little if any regard for the needs of others. Anankelogy distinguishes between core needs for functioning and what we do about such needs that we conventionally also label as needs. I may say I need a glass of water, but more accurately I need water that I prefer to be provided in a glass. Since I can get that water from a bottle or direct from a water fountain, anankelogy identifies these as preferences and not literally as needs. If there is any flexibility, you can "prefer" one thing over another and still objectively function. Your need for water is inflexible . How to get that water is flexible. So anankelogy speaks of “inflexible needs ” to point to these core needs . Anankelogy appreciates resources to resolve your core needs exist less flexibly that how we access such resources. And who should access, you or somebody else , exists far more flexibly. This helpful distinction allows the academic discipline of anankelogy to better understand our needs. We can now delay gratification. We can postpone the urge to ease our discomforting needs so we can better understand the full gamut of our experience of needs. Need-response We can now describe what is happening with a set of needs without rushing to insist what should be done about such needs. Need-response applies this discipline when challenging the privileged norm of relieving pain of unmet needs by enduring the discomfort it takes to resolve needs. Once resolved, the body no longer has cause to use pain to warn of a threat to functioning that no longer exists. Reactive Problem As long as we assume all needs stem from subjective experience, we tend to link each need to our choices. If only we made better rational choices, we wouldn’t be in so much pain. Or do goes our assumptions. While volition plays a role, you never choose to be thirsty. You never choose to be hungry. Or to be lonely. Each of these starts not with some subjective experience from our choices, but from an objective change in your ability to function regardless of your choices. Your choices can influence when you feel thirsty. But you will eventually require water to restore your body’s fluid equilibrium. You cannot choose to simply ignore your body’s demand for water and still be able to objectively function. Responsive Solution The more we suspend our reliance upon impersonal rules and rational choices, the more we can get back to addressing our many overlooked needs. Instead of stumbling into disappointment after disappointment, we can do much more to dynamically engage each other’s specific needs. Need-response counters normalized alienation of impersonal rules with mutual respect for one another’s engaged needs. Need-response provides tools lacking in all of the other professions for fully resolving our needs. In the process, need-response holds the powerful accountable to the results of their influence upon our vulnerable needs. The more you allow need-response to fully resolve our needs, the more we can all function individually and collectively. The more needs we resolve, the more problems clear up . The more we resolve our needs, the more of our potential we can reach. The more we respect each other’s needs, the more we can spread around much needed love. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: Certainly there are aspects of needs beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Could this apply to philosophy and other areas currently regarded as mostly subjective? How could need-response answer the decline in trust in our institutions? I can see room for abuse by bad faith actors insisting their subjectivity has some objective core. Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

< Back NC Center on Actual Innocence not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next

Our laws do not resolve needs; people do. < Back G03 Law Principle List of all principles Our laws do not resolve needs; people do. Image: Pixabay – 652234 (click on meme to see source image) Summary 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. Description Which do you think is more likely? Quietly following all the given rules will allow us all to thrive. OR Linking cited rules to expectations can allow more of us to thrive. Anankelogy Laws impersonally convey needs in ways letting you avoid vulnerability. If some law exists to address your every need, you never have to be fully aware of your own needs. You simply wait for others to obey all laws in order to satisfy whatever you expect from them. But how is that working? Since laws cannot address your specific needs, dependence on laws set you up for disappointment. We mindlessly let “law” stand in for “need”. I say it’s against the law to steal, for example, when I really mean that I need to freely access my property without fear of it being expropriated by others. Short of serving some need, no one actually cares about a law. Laws keep our public behavior more predictable. To ideally serve our needs. But the law can never be detailed enough to address all of our publicly affected needs. Passive compliance tends to pull us further from knowing our specific needs. Alienation from ourselves creeps in. To avoid exposing our sense of powerless in society, we cite law to suggest enforcement regimes will compel respect for our exposed and vulnerable needs . Along the way, we normalize not communicating the details of our specific needs. Others should somehow know what not to do to us. Nondiscrimination laws, for example, should warn others when they are being unfairly discriminatory. But the law itself cannot force others to be culturally competent towards minorities they hardly know. We increase our frustrations with others when our hope in law repeatedly disappoints. We typically cling to our expectations to legalistic norms to ease the mounting discomfort of our unmet needs. We tend to react by clinging more tightly to our disappointing legalistic norms, ad nauseum. Need-response Need-response presents an attractive alternative to impersonal hostilities of legalistic activism: responsivism . Responsivism is the belief and practice of responding directly to each other’s needs instead of relying upon impersonal laws . Responsivism counters the tendency of toxic legalism to perpetuate the problem we vainly trust laws to fix. Activism easily sparks extremism; responsivism nurtures balance . Activism generally hides behind rationality; responsivism engages deeper feelings . Activism evades reality; responsivism engages reality . Activism perpetuates pain; responsivism removes pain . Activism provokes mutual defensiveness; responsivism incentivizes mutual support . The more you try to pressure others with the weight of the law, the more they often push back. Their inflexible needs trump the social demands of cited laws. Your pressure provokes them to dig in their heels. What you reactively resist your reflexively reinforce . Reactive Problem Toxic legalism functions like a monkey trap . It’s hard to let go of something so familiar that you rely upon. The less it serves your needs and leaves you in pain, the more tightly you cling to it for familiar comfort. Your attachment may persist even after stepping back and realizing it isn’t helping you all that much. You think less about what the law is supposed to do, and blindly hope your obedience keeps you out of trouble. Or keeps everything okay. You trust the law works something like social glue, holding society together. It should motivate people to do the right thing, whatever that may be. When expected to follow the law, or even some widely agreed upon social norm, you typically react with compliance. You don’t want any trouble. You do your best to at least outwardly obey. Responsive Solution Responsivism unpacks such cited rules with citationization , or “law-fit ”. Whenever anyone expects or insists that you follow their trusted norms, whether written laws or popular social norms, you invite them to link that law with a need they expect it to serve . Without being defensive, you amicably ask, “Cui bono ?” That’s Latin for, “Who benefits?” Is your compliance only to serve them, or some institution at your expense? Or to maintain social order that you ostensibly also benefit? Or you could ask them, “Quid opus ?” Which is Latin “for what need?” You break the spell of passive compliance with this active response to the underlying needs of cited rules. Informally at first. But gradually more formally if necessary to compel a response to the affected needs. With either need-responsive question, you encourage them to give the why for their normative what . You let them know you seek to internalize the rule, so you can meaningfully follow it. In good faith. This basic practice allows us to incentivize one another to better identify and address the needs that laws can never fully identify or address. Instead of repeated disappointment of imposed norms, we cultivate more mutual understanding and need-honoring love . Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: But I still must work with legal institutions and not against them willy nilly. I can’t break the law just because I don’t see how it fits any need. I prefer to see how this works for others who ask cui bono or quid opus . What if need-response itself gets bogged down with legalistic norms? Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

< Back Wofford’s South Carolina Innocence Initiative not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next

If you or someone you support is a wrongly convicted innocent, and underserved by the adversarial legal process, need-response offes you three options. The first one is free: Estimated Innocence. Exoneration Services If you or someone you support is a wrongly convicted innocent, and underserved by the adversarial legal process, need-response offers you three alternative options. If you or someone you support is a wrongly convicted innocent, how can these services better serve you? Let us know in the comments below Welcome to Exoneration Services The video appears here in a moment. If not, refresh the page. Appellate Process Innocence Project Exoneration Services 1) Estimated Innocence 2) Innocence Profiles 3) Public Exoneration Innocence projects take cases slipping through the cracks of the appellate process. But who takes cases slipping through the cracks in the legalistic Innocence Movement? Exoneration Services does. Instead of serving laws, we prioritize serving your need for justice. First, by demonstrating the viability of your innocence claim using our downloadable Estimated Innocence Form. 1) Estimated Innocence . This form automatically compares your claim with those already exonerated. Then calculates the degree that your claim merits attention by those who take justice seriously. 2) Innocence Profiles . Upload the results of your calculate innocence to our Unexonerated page. Let the public recognize the viability of your innocence claim. Attract widespread support. 3) Public Exoneration . Invite your family and friends to support your innocence publicly. Engage innocence lawyers and judicial authorities beyond the confines of adversarial law. Incentivize them to exonerate yo u. Estimated Innocence DIY for free Download the free spreadsheet form. Fill it out and get an instant calculation of viable innocence. Use as you see fit. Estimated Innocence Innocence Profiles Free, donate if you can to offset costs Upload your completed Estimated Innocence Form. Let the whole world recognize your compelling claim of actual innocence. Attract public support. Innocence Profiles Public Exonerati on $199.99/month, crowdfunded, 30-day trial While waiting for innocence litigators to do their thing, start our public exoneration alternative. See if we can respond faster and more effectively than mere law. Public Exoneration Serving the underserved innocent Welcome to this brand-new approach to seeking exoneration from a wrongful conviction. This service is specifically for those demonstrating actual innocence , who had no role in the alleged crime. And for those underserved by the legal process. Academic research points to over a hundred thousand wrongly convicted innocent persons in prison and beyond. While grat eful for the Innocence Project, these teams of lawyers barely scrat ch the surface of these costly miscarriages of justice. While the Innocence Movement has helped to exonerate around 4,000 innocent people, far more remain falsely imprisoned. Most innocence projects lack the resources to effectively process all viable innocence claims. AI could improve this . Meanwhile, their output remains constrained by an adversarial legal system. Exoneration Services is a specialized service of need-response. Need-response is a new professional field to directly serve your needs beyond the confines of adversarial legalism. Including your need for exoneration from a guilty adversarialist system. You are witnessing something totally new. And you can help shape it into something serving your particular needs. Give your input You can help shape these visionary services to fit your particular needs. We meet up each month in our Unexonerated Innocent group on Telegram . New to Telegram? Learn more here , here , and here . We tentatively meet up the first Saturday of the month, at 10:00 am ET. We may change this as we learn when is the optimal day and time for all. Use the form below to express your interest. You will receive an invitation link to the meetup. At the scheduled time of the meeting, and assuming you have the Telegram app, just click on the provided link. Come prepared with your questions and suggestions. Let us help each other improve our chances for exonerating the innocent. telegram signup Join us on Telegram Join our private "Unexonerated Innocent" group on Telegram . When you register, you will receive the invite link in your inbox. First name* Last name* Email* Select each that describes you I am an innocence claimant I represent an innocence claimant I serve an innocence agency Your best available day to meet online each month REGISTER to JOIN Keep Hope Alive I am trying to build what I myself need. I am a survivor of a wrongful conviction, yet trapped in poverty because of collateral consequences of a wrongful conviction . To sustain this vision, I need your help. The more you can donate here, the greater the chance this can succeed for the many who desperately need this. Thank you, and they thank you. Or donate directly on FreeFunder A donation option appears here after a few seconds If not, then simply refresh the page Follow developments Can't join us on Telegram? Then follow developments on our Need-Response podcast . Episodes air every other Wednesday. Co hosted by Steph Turner and Gustavo Nascimento, season two focuses on serving the unexonerated innocent. Your input shared in our Telegram meet ups could wind up on the show. Let's talk . Let's make waves. Ultimately, let's free the innocent! You can follow the show on different podcast platforms. Spotify Amazon Castbox iHeart PlayerFM YouTube NR Clips RSS feed See you there. How can these better serve you?

There is no good nor bad except for need. < Back C01 General Principle List of all principles There is no good nor bad except for need. Image: Pixabay – 12019 (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you fully satisfy what you need, the more you label this as good. The less you resolve a need to the point you’re left in some degree of discomfort, the more you characterize this as bad. Anything you ascribe as good points back to what helps you function. Anything you ascribe as bad painfully detracts from your ability to function. Judgments of good or bad apply only to what we do about our needs, never the objective fact of the needs themselves. If no bearing on your needs, then no moralizing. Description Which do you think is more likely? Any judgment of good or bad is always subjective and arbitrary. OR Good and bad can be linked to the objective facts or our needs. Anankelogy While morality has its arbitrary side, anankelogy recognizes it also includes an objective dimension . For example, while you choose how to react to feeling threatened in a conflict, your life objectively requires to remove any actual threat to your ability to fully function. You do not choose to have your defenses painfully provoked, only how you interpret and act upon your triggered defensiveness. Anankelogy distinguishes between the objective fact of unchosen needs and our subjective chosen responses to such needs. It calls this moral distinction . While we can disagree about how to morally respond to our needs, there is no point in disagreeing with the objective phenomena of the needs themselves. If I tell you that I am thirsty, or must find my own purpose to excel at my job, it remains pointless for you or anyone to disagree. These needs exist amorally. The morality judging things as good or made serves as code for need, in more ways than one. First, in the obvious sense that morality outlines a code of conduct to guide our need-impacting behaviors. Second, in the less obvious sense that moralitysymbolically represents what you and I require to function, personally and interpersonally. And more specifically to what we choose to act toward each other’s unchosen needs. Labeling something as good categorizes it as beneficial to our needs, and to our capacity to function. Good friends provide for our objective need for social support, for companionship. A good road provides for our need to get us to our destination. A good private space provides for our need for solitude. Apart from such needs, there is little to categorize as good or bad. Yes, we often regard something as “good” or “bad” in a purely aesthetic sense. “Good food” may taste great but not necessarily good for you. Our aesthetics serves our need for appreciation, for beauty and potentially for meaningfulness. The more something appeals to us, and we view it as good, the more it satisfies some emotional need. What satisfies one need may be less satisfactory to another. Bad food may be stale, for example, but still sufficiently nutritious. Anytime we label something as bad , we are categorizing it as objectionable to our needs and to our capacity to function. A bad friend is one who betrays you. A road full of potholes that could damage your car you naturally regard as bad. A private space easily invaded is not so good, or maybe even bad for your need for solitude. After all, you didn’t choose to have these needs . If every core need exists as an objective fact , then anankelogy suggests there is an objective side to morality . The less you can resolve your objective needs, the more your capacity to function objectively declines. Bad. The less you can resolve your objective needs, the more your capacity to function objectively declines. The more you can resolve your objective needs, the more your capacity to function objectively improves. Need-response Need-response clears up a lot of moral relativism. Morality is relative to the absolute of unchosen needs . You can adjust what you do about your needs, and others can change what they do or don’t do in response to your apparent needs. But no one can relativize the natural needs themselves. When anyone compromises your need for self-efficacy , for example, your wellness suffers independent of your subjective awareness of the experience. The less you can freely do for yourself, the less you can fully function. Your body then warns you of this diminished level of functioning in the form of emotional pain. Your pain subjectively follows the objective drop in your ability to fully function. Existentialism reminds us that we have far more choices than often assumed. But apply this only to our chosen responses to our unchosen needs . Once the objective fact of a need occurs, it is then too late to circumscribe it with moral options. Reactive Problem The more we assume others can change what they need to suit our own expectations, especially if coercing them to suppress their needs to honor ours, the more their capacity to function will objectively decrease. Anankelogy recognizes this conflating of unchosen needs with chosen responses as moral conflation . The less they can fully function, the less they can capably honor our needs. The more one pressures another to respect one’s own needs, in the name of what one deems as “good”, the less capable the other can respect that need. This easily leads to anger, to a risk of emotional abuse, and sometimes results in violence. The more you rationalize your need to defend yourself at any cost, for example, the more you easily overlook the other side’s inflexible need to defend themselves. This applies also to wars between nations or between different ethnic peoples. The selfish standard applied gets easily replied in return, easily inciting cycles of violence that blinds each side to the other side’s inflexible needs . When failing to first affirm another’s unchosen needs when confronting their actions affecting your own needs, you risk provoking their pain. They naturally dig in their heels when you trigger their defenses over something then cannot possibly change. Just as you naturally get defensive when confronted by another. Anankelogy recognizes this rush to label something good or bad as a component in need-response conflation or moral conflation . That’s when you assume unchosen needs and chosen responses are the same thing. The more you provoke mutual defensiveness with such self-serving moral stances, the more you easily provoke pain that all would prefer to avoid . Once you go down that pain-normalizing path, you tend to moralize pain as bad . Your “good” sinks to the level of avoiding pain more than resolving the needs causing your pain . Your “bad” sinks to the level of suffering the pain your own behavior provokes. You sink to the level of discomfort avoidance that traps you in painfully diminished levels of functioning . Responsive Solution Need-response carefully distinguishes between your unchosen needs and anyone’s chosen responses to them. This can help you deescalate many conflicts. The more you affirm another’s unchosen needs before you bring up their chosen behaviors, the less you get yourself in trouble. Need-response offers a simple communication format for this. You may recognize it as the “praise sandwich ” that sandwiches the “bad news” of how they negatively affect your needs between two pieces of “good news”. Consider this example: Good news : “I affirm your need for self-determination, and prefer to avoid doing anything that could restrict your right to choose your own destiny to reach your life’s full potential.” Bad news : “However, I must point out how your recent actions can threaten my security. I don’t see how you can reach your full potential while limiting mine.” Good news : “I will assume you mean no harm. I trust you intend to do your best, and together we can find ways to mutually respect each other’s affected needs. Thank you.” This praise sandwich approach points to the anankelogy principle that wellness is psychosocial . Modern frameworks tend to reduce wellness to its internal biological and cognitive elements . This needlessly stigmatizes those requiring support after suffering damage from socioenvironmental threats to their wellbeing. Research now exposes the oft-overlooked harm of our norms of hyper-individualism . Watered down philosophies of existentialism allow the powerful to blame the relatively powerless for the threats and suffered harms these powerful folks repeatedly cause. While you individually experience the bad of such threats and harms, it is not entirely good to expect you to do all the therapeutic changes. Especially if those bad socio-environmental threats keep damaging your wellbeing. Need-response exist to address such external contributors to your wellbeing. Instead of relying on alienating norms that pits us against each other, or assumes powerholders are inherently bad , need-response addresses the unchosen needs on all sides. Need-response provides you the tools of responsivism , to cut through alienating norms to incentivize others to support your wellness needs. You can then challenge the “bad” of unresolved needs with the increasing “good” of resolving more needs, reducing and even removing the cause of pain, and restoring more wellness. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: Can a need be “bad” because it only occurred from a bad behavior? Good tasting food can be bad for you, so maybe it’s how we used those labels. Good and bad remains distinct from right and wrong, so how does that apply to all this? My good could be your bad, and that relative side of morality is not covered here. Relieving pain feels good, but you’re saying that this is not actually all that good? Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

You NEED This Introducing anankelogy, the study of need Anankelogy is the brainchild of Steph Turner , author of the book introducing this new academic field. Steph identifies as a transspirit , or someone who feels spiritually compelled to transcend cultural divisions in order to connect more deeply with all of life in order to resolve needs more fully. Steph attributes the bulk of the insights into this new social science to spiritual wisdom. It's a wisdom Steph reports as a series of epiphanies that come naturally after resolving more and more needs. You may realize greater depths of reality that you never thought possible after more of your needs fully resolve. The more we unquestioningly go along with social norms for merely easing our needs or relieving the pain of our unmet needs, the more we see the world through a distorting lens. Anankelogy cuts a clear path through all this fog. Packed with 133 charts and diagrams, You NEED This provides many visual aids to help you see our experience of needs more clearly. Each of the six chapters subdivide into tightly organized sections, and numbered thoroughly for easy reference. No other book makes such clear sense behind our different political views . You NEED This unpacks political views as an outward expression of our inward inflexible priority of needs. Unpacking our polarization is as simple, yet challenging, as love ; of respecting other's different priority of needs as we would have them respect our different priority of needs. Get your own copy of this book to better understand your own needs. Discover what your emotions are truly about. Appreciate our common ground, and our many differences. Replace the misunderstanding fueling popular outrage culture with greater love for one another. Let us all get back to our potential for greater love. Purchase your eBook or paperback copy at Amazon . order on Amazon Anankelogy 101 eCourse

< Back The Innocence Project not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next

< Back Innocence Project of Florida not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next