Search Results

< Back Washington 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

All natural needs sit equal before nature. < Back C06 General Principle List of all principles All natural needs sit equal before nature. Image: Pixabay – jameswheeler (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more someone needs some core need to function, like maintaining their optimal body temperature, the more someone else needs something just as important in order to function. The more the spider requires food from the captured fly, the more the captured fly must try to break free from the web. No one’s natural core needs matters more than the natura core needs of others. Description Which makes more sense to you? The natural needs of some matter more than the needs of others. OR Natural needs exist as objective facts equally among everybody. Anankelogy My need to stop the bleeding from a laceration I just suffered is no more important than my neighbor’s need to quench their thirst. Both natural needs must be resolved in order to function. Lack of water objectively reduces function on par with a wound objectively reducing function. Granted, stopping the bleeding feels far more urgent than a need to gulp down a glass of water. But urgency only suggests the need must be met promptly. It doesn’t mean it’s more important than a less urgent need. Individual functionality is not so easily zero sum. For example, the fly caught in the spider’s web needs to break free from that web on par with the spider’s need for nutrition from that captured fly. Survival seems more urgent than merely a meal. But flies remain far more numerous than spiders. While zero sum in appearance, functionality at the level of the species is not so zero sum. In the larger scheme of nature, the spider’s need to survive by eating the captured fly sits equal with the fly’s need to survive by breaking free from the spider’s web. Each other’s needs resolve and evolve to eventually balance out equally. The more we ignore this principle, the easier we fall into trouble. We fight each other to try to force others to need differently. But reality never yields to our feel-reactive preferences. The more we recognize the equal stature of one another’s natural needs, the more we can all reach more of life’s missed potential. Need-response Judging from appearances, the more you experience your needs subjectively, the more you should be able to change how you experience them. With anankelogy distinguishing between the objective functionality of needs and the later subjective reporting of such diminished functionality, need-response adds a level of discipline missing in all other disciplines. Reactive Problem If public policy shaped by our politics and the judiciary assumes some natural needs exist more important than other natural needs , we quickly get ourselves into trouble. The objective need to function exists and persists on all sides to any conflict. Sure, we can favor one side over another in some kind of legal or political settlement. But to expect the losing side to not suffer pain or any consequential problems is simply wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes they make a law . Neglecting this innate equality of natural needs sparks all kinds of problems. Unfortunately, most institutions fail to enable us to resolve our different priority of needs . Responsive Solution Need-response provides a process to address each other’s different priority of needs. Need-response distinguishes between the needs themselves and what we can do about them. Need-response applies the higher moral standard of mutual regard and social love . mutual regard – considering the natural needs of others as equally important as your own, because they objectively are. social love – putting another’s need ahead of your own for a moment, to inspire them to put your need ahead of theirs. We must not confuse or conflate our objective difference in priorities with arbitrary favoritism of some folk’s needs over others. Your natural priority of needs exists as an objective fact for your functioning on par with my priority of needs, even if those priorities contradict. If I naturally require less government involvement in my rural community life, my unchosen priority exists on par with the suburbanite requiring more government supports. If I naturally require more government supports, my unchosen priority exists on par with those requiring less government involvement. The more we stop fighting with the power of nature to restore each to full functioning, the less we slip into trouble. The more we support each other to resolve needs, with minimal to no impediment to resolving our own needs, the better we all can be. 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: How can my need to stop a war from killing all my friends be equal to the other side’s needs? What’s the best way to distinguish between urgency and a natural priority of a need? What can I do about authorities imposing their needs ahead of my own? Is there anything I can do to resolve my needs if others keep prioritizing theirs at my expense? 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 Georgia 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 Wrongful Conviction 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

We cannot solve our specific problems from the level of generalizing that created them. < Back E01 Conflict Principle List of all principles We cannot solve our specific problems from the level of generalizing that created them. Image: Pixabay – PublicDomainPictures (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you rely on generalizations to address your problems, the more you risk overlooking the specifics essential to fully resolving such needs. Problems typically arise from overgeneralizing. We often generalize to avoid pain or to avoid losing a fragile coalition of support. The more we try to fix our problems while ignore the details of specific needs, the more our problems persist. Description Which do you think would be more effective? Relieving pain of stubborn problems by relying on agreed upon comforting generalizations. OR Solving stubborn problems by addressing the overlooked specific needs behind them. Anankelogy This one was inspired in part by an apocryphal quote of Einstein. This one adds the oft-overlooked contrast between distracting generalizations and engaging specifics. This applies to both senses of the word generalization. Wide application and avoiding specifics. 1) You generalize by applying it across the board. For example, the risk of causing a car accident while texting and driving is something that can be generalized to all drivers. 2) You also generalize by avoiding disagreeable specifics. For example, you hold together a fragile coalition by not addressing any specifics that could drive a wedge between some factions. If I generalize that everyone should read my book , I am both applying this generalization to all without exception, and avoiding specific good reasons many have to not read my book. In either sense, the risk of error steeply rises. Politics runs thick with errors because of its reliance on such sweeping generalizations. Popular politics tends to force all into a policy that may not fit their needs and avoid addressing those specific needs. Yet, we cling to many stifling generalizations. Such as generalizing that we must oppose one another’s beliefs with debates to reach better solutions, instead of keeping it safe to address each other’s specific vulnerable needs. And many of us cling to generalizing that it is better to avoid all pain instead of embracing the naturally sharp pain of resolving our more painful needs, which guarantees the problem will not be solved and the pain of unmet needs repeatedly recurs. Generalizing for relief to avoid uncomfortable reality generally produces crappy results. Enduring the natural discomforts of engaging vulnerable specifics does far more to address the underlying needs fueling our problems. Once we solve those specific needs, the general problems tend to take care of themselves. Need-response Many social norms overgeneralize, exposing your specific needs to neglect. Whether written or unwritten, many social norms overlook your particular experiences. Which ignores your specific needs. Passive compliance usually leaves your needs unresolved, and keeping you in continual pain. For example, an overgeneralizing version of the principle “no one is above the law” can impose authority over your specific needs. The power of nature will not allow you to bend your inflexible needs to fit some flexible law or social norm. The more you mindlessly obey, the more pain you likely suffer. While no one is above the law, no law sits above your natural needs which nature created prior to any human law. You don’t require anyone’s permission to breathe , but overgeneralizing authority can coerce you to suppress your specific needs. Pain naturally results, which tends to keep you attached to comforting generalizations in this vicious cycle. A problem cannot be solved until each underlying need gets resolved. Anankelogy appreciates a problem as a situation of unresolved needs. A solution addresses a way to resolve each affected need creating the problem. Placating the pain of unmet needs does little to solve problems. Reactive Problem The more problems emerge to overwhelm us, the more likely we opt for widely accepted generalizationsfor some relief. We could do more to solve our personal problems. And be more effective and disciplined to solve interpersonal problems. But we’re generally powerless to power problems and structural problems. We must then rely on institutions offering comforting generalizations that divide us. Politics easily keeps us divided instead of resolving each other’s specific needs. The adversarial judicial process easily keeps us divided instead of resolving each other’s affected justice needs. Their comforting generalizations is about all we have. Until now. Responsive Solution Need-response upends these destructive norms of generalizing for relief. Need-response inspires stretches your tolerance for discomfort of boldly facing your unmet needs. Need-response equips you with the greater ability to face and embrace the shaper pain of resolving your specific needs. The less your needs fully resolve from trusting generalizations, the less you can function and the more pain you suffer. Your body must repeatedly warn you of this threat to your ability to function. You gradually become accustomed to the dull pain of unmet needs and rely more on generalizations offering some relief. Consequently, you tend to drift from engaging reality—and feel trapped in perpetuating pain. The more your needs fully resolve from engaging specifics, the more you can function and not suffer so much pain. Your body has no cause to warn you with pain if there is no threat to your ability to function in this area. You gain the insight of what fully resolves the need, with many helpful specifics. Consequently, you find yourself drawn closer to reality—and less reliant on these stifling generalizations. A wellness campaign specifically addresses the four anankelogically recognized types of problems . Personal problems. Interpersonal problems. Power problems. Structural problems. With a wellness campaign , you can solve your specific problems without adding to the generalizationsthat helped to create your problems in the first place. And all involved can see the wisdom in letting go of their reliance on such generalizations. They too can resolve more of their needs, remove cause for their pain, and reach more of their potential for love and in life. 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: What if I have not access to the specifics, and must rely on available generalizations? Is there any generalization I can act upon without neglecting specifics? What’s the worse that could happen if I keep acting on generalizations I’ve always trusted? Who’s to say if a specific is actually specific or just another specific-sounding generalization? 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

Placeholder Image mass avoidance mass avoidance < Back 2 mass avoidance Mass avoidance is the widespread norm of not personally engaging with others or in something that seems uncomfortable or threatening. Need experience Where vulnerability avoidance occurs on a personal level, mass avoidance occurs on a collective level. If few of us can feel safely vulnerable to be totally honest with others, or with ourselves, more of us will assume avoidance is common. Other reasons emerge to avoid the avoidable. Avoiding all that seems or is unpleasant crystallizes into a shared norm. We admit our fears to no one. We keep our guard up all the time. We provoke each other’s defensiveness, blaming each other. Fewer of our needs ever fully resolve. We suffer more and more. We function less and less. Defunctionalizing Refunctionalizing Examples The widespread evasion of our natural tendency to first estimate the trustworthiness of others by their most visible features, lest we get publicly labeled as a bigot. Relational knowing The fewer others are dropping their guard to expose their full authenticity, the less likely you will risk dropping your guard to expose your authentic self to raw rejection. The more others avoid, the more you avoid. The more we all avoid, and socially punish those who expose their authentic full being, the more normatively we all avoid matters we would otherwise face more courageously. Sign up or sign in to view the full entry Complementary refunctions Impact engagement 6/16/23 Previous Next

< Back University of Miami Law Innocence Clinic 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

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