Search Results

Glossary J judicialism (n. ) - DEFUNCTION Reliance upon the impersonal, avoidant adversarial process to address justice needs with emphasis on assuring a fair adjudication process, but with little to no accountability to actual outcomes upon the justice needs of the vulnerable. Exists as a structural problem level of defunction . See civic legalism . 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

< Back Rocky Mountain 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 Midwest 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 The Marshall 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

You don’t need anyone’s permission to breathe. < Back F01 Authority Principle List of all principles You don’t need anyone’s permission to breathe. Image: Pixabay - Tama66 (click on meme to see source image) Summary 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. Description Which do you think is more likely? Enjoying modern conveniences may require us to give up a few freedoms. OR The more we rely on authorities for what we once provided for ourselves, the more coercive authorities can get. Anankelogy The less we can provide for ourselves, the more vulnerable to the whims of those we must relyupon. I cannot dig my own well for water, for example, so I must take the word of those who tell me this city water is okay to drink. What if it isn’t ? Even if I could dig my own well, I do not have the time. Even if I could test my own faucet water, I am content deferring to local authorities who persuade me to trust its quality. Our lives run deep with countless instances of having to defer to authorities. What if local authorities advise me to boil my water ? Annoyingly inconvenient, but fine. What if local authorities drastically raise my water bill ? Deeply frustrating, but I’ve got to have water. What if local authorities shut of my city water supply due to nonpayment by my landlord? Now I’m utterly disgusted! Each encroachment on my access to water acclimates me to tolerate what I would have objected before. Each government intrusion into my personal affairs—like warrantless surveillance of my private conversations overseas—conditions me to put up with a few more invasions of my privacy. Each minor infringement upon my right to access quality healthcare coerces me to settle for whatever crumbs the authorities permit. Our vulnerable dependencies tend to incentivize authorities to gradually impose upon our unchosen needs . You can choose how to respond to authorities. But you cannot choose to no longer require self-efficacy . Or cease your necessity for equal treatment . Or stop your need for the dependability of others. Each time you cannot resolve such needs, you naturally suffer emotional pain. Authorities often coerce us into accepting their pain relief options as the only available option. Adversarial justice and polarizing politics induce us to settle for the winning side in a court or ballot battle. They rarely inspire us to identify and resolve all painful needs. This easily pulls us into relying upon them to ease the mounting pain they help to perpetuate. We increasingly submit to their influence. At least we don’t seek their permission to breathe, yet. Need-response Populism is in part a reaction to failing elite-led institutions. Their authority counts on the populous accepting their expertise. The less responsive to our inflexible needs , the less trust we have in their institutions. The more their impositions go against our needs, the more we understandably resist. But the more our lives depend upon their institutions, the more some of cast a blind eye to their shortcomings. We can explain away their imperfections. We could rationalize how no institution ever fully lived up to its founding purpose. We may even accept their narrative that any failings are mostly our personal fault. These authoritative powerholders rely on untested assumptions about how to impact our lives. But they do not know what they do not know. These elite influencers could use impact data that we ourselves provide to them, as condition to earning the legitimacy to impact on our lives. Reactive Problem Anankelogy distinguishes between “ascribed legitimacy” and “earned legitimacy” of authorities. Ascribed legitimacy : Arbitrary acceptance of authority prone to manipulation and coerced low responsiveness to the needs of those under that authority. Earned legitimacy : Cultivated acceptance of authority by incentivizing authority figures with impact data that evidentially demonstrates they have enabled the full resolution of subordinate needs. Contemporary norms rely heavily on ascribed legitimacy. But as the rule based international order breaks down , tolerance for mere ascribed legitimacy collapses. U.S. hypocrisy , especially in its relation with the Israeli far-right government , exposes the compounding incompetencies of authorities too removed from everyday lives to aptly empathize with those they negatively impact. Instead of actively respecting each other’s needs, uniformed authorities react to conflicts with an indulgent call to arms. On the world stage of geopolitics, this arguably bloats the military industrial complex . Weapons manufacturers benefit from forever wars , and not so much from peacetime. Uninformed authorities coerce us with fearmongering and self-serving pleas for tax revenue to “protect” national security , often without tested evidence . And always without addressing the underserved needs igniting the conflict. Big money incentives legacy media to play along. Too many of us fall in line. Metaphorically, we settle for asking their permission to breathe. In short, current authorities lack the kind of discipline that anankelogy can offer to improve their legitimacy. Responsive Solution For starters, asserting the objective fact of inflexibly unchosen needs can become a gamechanger. No longer can authorities blindly expect you to simply go along with their chosen policies. They must now recognize everyone’s impacted unchosen needs and unchosen priority . They will now be confronted with the indisputable reality that whatever they reactively resist they reflexively reinforce . Second, join us in raising the bar with mutual regard . Reject the false promises of avoidant adversarialism . Replace it with the higher standard of engaging mutuality . Join us in mutually nurturing our capacity to be more loving toward each other. Together, we cease conflating our unchosen needs with our chosen responses to them. Such moral conflation denies them earned legitimacy . To earn legitimacy, authorities must engage the unchosen needs and priorities on all sides of any conflict. This effectively brings them out of the debilitating traps of avoidant adversarialism . We level the playing field by encouraging powerful authorities to be recognized as mere fallible humans. We affirm their unchosen needs and priorities to model how they are to affirm ours. We raise the standard to social love . We affirm the legitimacy of their influence in our lives the more they demonstrably appreciate our vulnerable needs . When we say “you shall love ” we mean it. If we prove ourselves more affirming of each other’s needs, then we may assert greater legitimacy than them. Engage! Breathe freely. You don’t require anyone’s permission to breathe. Or to resolve any of your needs. And nobody needs your permission to resolve theirs. No one can bend the facts of anyone’s inflexible needs . Affirm the unchosen needs of others as you would have them affirm your unchosen needs . Hold the powerful accountable to this higher standard by lovingly refusing their coerciveness . Put love first. And if any authority refuses this higher standard, let them seek our permission for them to breathe. 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 will authorities react to my insistence to first affirm my unchosen need? Have you shown this works without engineering a repressive backlash? You have no idea how much pressure I’m under by the local authorities where I live. By what authority do you say I don’t need any permission from anyone to breathe? 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

Laws impersonally convey needs. < Back G05 Law Principle List of all principles Laws impersonally convey needs. Image: Pixabay - LN_Photoart (click on meme to see source image) Summary 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. Description Which do you think is more likely? Trust social norms and enforcement by rational authorities to keep our emotions in check. OR Resolve our needs more fully to cultivate our emotions to act more properly apart from norms. Anankelogy While emotions personally convey needs , laws impersonally convey needs. While emotions alert you to needs from within, laws alert you to needs from without. While emotions draw attention to mostly your own affected needs, laws draw attention mostly to the needs of others. Apart from needs, there are no human laws. Your needs and my needs create purpose for laws. So let’s focus more on the needs our laws exist to serve. The more we rely on laws, the less we get to know each other’s particular needs. We may vainly expect laws to address everything others do that affect us. Then face repeated disappointment. Need-response aims to complement—or compete if necessary—our overburdened legal institutions. The judiciary and politics were never created to address all of our needs. Religion and community traditionally covered what the law could not. Modernity upends the central role of religion in many societies. And replaced our sense of local community with normalized alienation. Need-response presents the potential to fill that gap. Need-response Need-response aims to complement legal institutions, like the judiciary and political institutions. We introduce them to the grounding principle of inflexible needs . In other words, that every need exists as an objective fact . We define “need” narrowly with social science rigor. Anankelogically defines need as anything essential for functioning . You require water to exist, so you need water. You don’t require the bottle to hold that water, as you can get it other ways, so this anankelogically not a need, but merely a preference. Essentially, a “need” is movement to enable functioning . We draft and enforce laws to motivate cooperation for enabling each other’s functioning. Laws tend to serve as external motivators, in contrast to love as the most powerful internal motivator. And that can create a problem. Reactive Problem The more dependent on laws to convey our needs, the greater the disappointment. Especially when counting on the popular adversarial approach enflaming many of our conflicts. We impersonally expect others to take full responsibility for their actions, ignoring the context of their limited options. We impersonally insist others suppress the emotional intensity of their unmet needs, vainly expecting rationality to hide such uncomfortable realities. We impersonally demand others accept our self-affirming generalities, neglecting the nuance shaping each other’s specific needs. We impersonally avoid the unpleasant realities of how we affect their inflexible needs, overlooking how unmet needs traps us in pain we keep hoping in vain to avoid. We impersonally oppose others in the name of taking a firm stance, unwittingly provoking each other’s defensiveness when compelled to dig in our heels to guard our inflexible needs. Our adversarial legal institutions of the judiciary and politics fail to recognize these patterns. While their legalists mean well, they often reinforce conflicts with their adversarial approach. Need-response offers a compelling alternative that can actually lead to more peace and security, by addressing each other’s underlying needs. Responsive Solution With its more disciplined approach to address inflexible needs fueling conflicts, need-response raises itself to a higher moral standard than mere law enforcement. To incentivize responsiveness to each other’s inflexible affected needs, need-response introduces response enforcement . As currently envisioned, response enforcement progresses in seven stages. Revisit best practices. We look at ethical standards, industry best practices, licensing boards and such. In contrast to the legalist approach, we cultivate a nonadversarial process. Exhaust established accountabilities. We also invite any internal accountabilities to responding to affected needs. If unresponsiveness to inflexible needs, we move beyond legalist options. Introduce "law-fit". We tie any cited norm or law to the needs it’s meant to serve. We melt the alienation of impersonal laws. Coordinate civil disobedience . If still unresponsive to inflexible needs, we attract widening support to defy illicit norms. We challenge impersonal laws to resolve needs as much as need-response can. Escrow tax liabilities . We put our money where our mouth is. We deposit our tax liabilities into an independent account, automatically released to public coffers when they accountably respond to the public needs they exist to serve. Launch a scorn campaign . We hold all authorities personally and professionally accountable to wellness outcomes. We shun the resistant. We may ostracize the stubborn. And potentially mortify (or count as dead to us) the most violent of illicit authorities. Go full on response enforcement . We must resolve inflexible needs by any proper means necessary. We hold all, including ourselves, to empirically measurable wellness outcomes. If legalists resist such accountability, they lose legitimacy to affect us at all. As Jefferson wrote in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” Instead of abolishing any current government or shifting to a new form of governance, need-response positions itself as a competive alternative to legalism. It can either complement or compete with law enforcement. We cannot sit idle as toxic legalism destroys humanity. Need-response has yet to test these options. But something like it is desperately needed to fill the gaps exposed by our failing impersonal law-based institutions. Because your inflexible personal needs matter much more than flexible impersonal laws. 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: We still need laws to preserve law and order, don’t we? Who keeps need-response professionals accountable to affected needs? How can a nonadversarial alternative be more effective than adversarial justice? I can a competitive alternative helping but suspect the powers that be would shut it down. 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

A rush to debate usually skips the details that really matter in life. < Back E03 Conflict Principle List of all principles A rush to debate usually skips the details that really matter in life. Image: Pixabay – klickblick (click on meme to see source image) Summary The quicker you assert your stance against another, or argue against an opposing position, the more likely you overlooked some vital details supporting the other side. The rush to debate often betrays avoidance of uncomfortable details. The more you can keep a disagreement at a controlled rational level, the less you risk exposing any embarrassing details you cannot defend or emotions you cannot control. Description Which do you think is more likely? Anyone disagreeing with you probably has no reasonable contribution to the argument. OR Disagreements usually mask what we’ve yet to feel courageous enough to vulnerably share. Anankelogy You hear someone boldly make a claim contrary to what you know must be true. If you don’t challenge it, you risk letting them act upon their false information. You could suffer as a result. So what do you do? You quickly announce, “I disagree!” You challenge their beliefs. You want them to bring receipts. You confront their skewed views. You prepare your proofs. You rush to dispute, to debate, to emphasize your differences. Honestly, how well does such an approach work? It’s easy to convince ourselves we’re acting on facts when actually we’re driven by our biases. We interpret available date in our advantage. We measure what is true by what we feel will ease our needs. We believe what we need to believe . If only focused on easing my discomfort, I don’t need to know what is really bothering you. If I feel I must avoid discomfort , then I must avoid the specifics that drive our differences. Ironically, this easily keeps me trapped in pain . Need-response Need-response prioritizes specifics over generalizations. Sure, generalizing has its place. But we tend to overuse that tool. Need-response helps to reacquaint us to our overlooked specifics. It’s easy to fool ourselves that we’re being rational when we’re actually being rash. It’s easy to be tricked by our confirmation bias , as we seek only the information confirming our beliefs. Even when those beliefs trap us in pain. Reactive Problem Problems abound when rushing into debate. Take the hot button issue of abortion for example. Rushing to debate skips what may matter most. The prolife side misses vital details strengthening the prochoice stance. The prochoice side overlooks particulars cementing the prolife stance. The prolife activist arguing for the new mother to keep her baby fails to appreciate a mother’s unspoken trauma of losing autonomy over her own body from years of endured sexual abuse. The prochoice activist arguing to let any woman terminate her pregnancy fails to appreciate the consequences to those who rushed into this enormous decision and continue to suffer deep, deep regret. You can apply this to any politicized or adjudicated contested issue. When each side jumps to assert their differences, they leave little to any room to appreciate the nuance driving their differences. Opposition often gets stuck on overgeneralized assumptions. The most relevant specifics too easily get ignored. Problems persist, perpetuating the pain that’s supposed to be eased by the debate. Responsive Solution Need-response addresses one of the key motivations for missing relevant specifics: discomfort avoidance . The more you can embrace life’s natural discomforts, including the sharp pain involved in resolving some needs, the more prepared you are to relate to relevant specifics on all sides. Need-response offers a free program for stretching your comfort zone. You learn you can tolerate much more physical and emotional discomfort than you likely assume. You learn to embrace discomfort to resolve more needs to remove cause for pain. Next, need-response offers an inexpensive program for turning conflict into opportunities for deeper connection. You learn how to not get so easily defensiveness during a conflict. You learn to consider the inflexible needs so you can defuse the tension. The first program addresses what anankelogy identifies as your easement orientation . The program helps you to shift your orientation from prioritizing relief-over-resolution or prioritizing resolution-over-relief . You learn to endure the discomfort of any unpleasant details. The second program addresses what anankelogy identifies as your conflict orientation . The program helps you to shift your orientation from staying guarded to staying open during conflicts. You learn to relate to the specifics fueling conflicts before they’re even revealed. 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 the other side tries to manipulate me with fake details? What if there’s no time to explore details? Too much detail could distract from solving the conflict. What about those who disagree simply to disagree and enjoy the fight? 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 Alaska 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 Indiana 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

Pain is perhaps nature’s least appreciated gift. < Back D03 Pain Principle List of all principles Pain is perhaps nature’s least appreciated gift. Image: Pixabay - Yeskay1211 (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more open you keep yourself to enduring evoked discomfort, the more you can resolve the underlying needs. The more you embrace the natural warning signs of threats to be removed, and you promptly remove them, the quicker you can move beyond the pain and remove its source. The more fully you can function. The better you can function because of pain, the more you can value it. Description Which do you think is more likely? Only a masochist or deranged person would ever appreciate feeling their pain. OR The more you appreciate the role of pain then the less of pain you must endure. Anankelogy Have you ever thanked your pain for alerting you to trouble? “Thank you, anxiety, for warning me that I may not be fully ready to handle this.” With this positive attitude, I am more likely to face a little more of it so I can build the courage to face even more—instead of reacting by retreating from what I fear. With my open appreciation for my anxiety, I make my fears serve me instead of me serving my fears . How do think your life would be if you had no warning system alarming you to respond to each threat? Wouldn’t you react more to trouble, as it springs up all of a sudden? The more I repress or suppress my uncomfortable feelings, the more threatening troubles spring up on me. “I tried to warn you,” my unpleasant feelings would say. Instead of avoiding my painful feelings, I could orient myself to more fully feel and process the pain. I could appreciate what it’s trying to warn me about. Then act upon that helpful information. Anankelogy explains how we each orient ourselves to the pain we face. The more we appreciate that pain exists to serve us, the more we can orient ourselves to make that pain serve us. And not let it compel us to serve it. That’s the problem with modern messages about the easy life. Buy this item and you will supposedly be happy. Take more of those and you will finally make it in life. Present just the right image and all will be okay. Such popular generalizations suck us into a life of more pain. There must be a better way. And there is! Need-response Perhaps it would be easier to appreciate your pain if there wasn’t so much of it. Need-response aims to both improve your natural tolerance for enduring pain and to remove cause for pain, especially the kind resulting from powerful others. Reactive Problem Despite the promise of modern conveniences to make life easier, we find ourselves struggling with a mounting load of emotional pain. Then we too easily blame ourselves, which takes our eyes off the real problem: social structures that coerce us to prioritize pain relief over need resolution. Here’s the thing. The more we avoid natural pain by taking comfort in material things, the less our needs resolve. The less those needs resolve, the more they grab our attention with increasing pain. Perhaps only a dull pain at first, but enough to hold you back from your life’s full potential. Anankelogy calls this “symfunctional strain ”. Symfunction refers to a less than optimal level of life. Instead of living up to our full potential, we get by with impersonal support from others. We put up with growing dependence on other who don’t know us. We rely on impersonal laws to make sure our basic needs get respected. Or higher needs typically go unheeded. Over time, we reach less and less of our full potential. This strain on our ability to fully function gradually builds. At first, it’s typically tolerable. Then it creates a growing level of manageable pain. Well, manageable for now. Eventually, symfunctional strain can become more painful than the originally avoided pain. Responsive Solution Need-response gets to the sources of your pain. There is no such thing as pain apart from unheeded warnings about apparent threats . The more we address those threats, the less cause for pain. Need-response identifies four levels of human problems provoking our pain. Think of any problem as a situation of persistently unresolved needs. The more you can resolve such needs, the more your pain slips away. 1. A personal problem : any problem you can resolve fully on your own. E.g., you could create more value on your job simply by being more engaged with your coworkers. You can remove any cause for pain on your own. 2. An interpersonal problem : any problem that can be resolved with someone of equal social power. E.g., you have a dispute with a coworker that you could settle with mutual cooperation. You can remove cause for pain by addressing those needs together. 3. A power problem : a problem resolved only by someone of higher social power. E.g., you settle for less-than-optimal work conditions to avoid losing your primary means to pay your bills. You can remove cause for pain by incentivizing those in power to respond better to your affected needs. 4. A structural problem : a problem resolved by transforming cultural norms like laws. E.g., your employer reports there is little if anything they can do about your situation as they are bound by law. You can remove cause for pain by supporting leaders to change problematic norms so they can better serve your needs and the needs of others similarly situated. Need-response addresses all four sources of your pain. It can help us all to stop habitually avoiding our body’s warning system of possible threats. It can help us all to relate better to those likely threats. It can help us all to stop causing so much pain in others. Need-response can help reorient you to embrace your naturally occurring pain while severely reducing others types of pain. It can help you to appreciate your own naturally occurring pain as nature’s lease appreciated gift. The more you appreciate this natural gift, the less of it you will face 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: I can’t imagine myself appreciating any of the pain I am suffering now. It would help to hear from others how they appreciate their pain. How does appreciating my pain result in less of it? If I had to appreciate my fear, I could perhaps be grateful that it _________. 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

A naturally prioritized need is an objective fact. < Back A02 Foundational Principle List of all principles A naturally prioritized need is an objective fact. Image: Pixabay – Valiphotos (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more something you require to fully function persists unsatisfied, the more your attention will be drawn toward its satisfaction. It matters less whether you believe you must prioritize it. The objective basis of your functioning subconsciously demands you focus on it over less pressing matters. Any subjective beliefs or feelings arrive after the objective fact of your life prioritizing it. The less you attend to your inflexibly prioritized needs, the less you can objectively function. Description Which do you think is more likely? All political and adjudicated conflicts are best resolved by whoever provides the best argument. OR All political and adjudicated conflicts are best resolved by resolving each side’s priority of needs. Anankelogy Not only do your natural needs for water and for companionship exist as objective needs, you objectively need some things more than other things in order to fully function. You prioritize those things necessary for you to objectively function. Independent of your subjective experience, you require water one moment and to relieve yourself in another moment. You objectively cannot function if you try to choose not to drink water when thirsty. You objectively cannot function when ignoring your need to relieve yourself. Independent of your subjective experience, you require companionship in one moment and to be left alone in another moment. You objectively cannot function if you fail to deeply connect with someone who deeply cares about you. You objectively cannot function if you ignore doing more things for yourself for when no one is around. Your need to draw in water and expel waste water is cyclic. Your need to draw closer to others and then pull away sometimes is also cyclic. You can easily relate how your objective priorities can change with the seasons. You experience other priorities of needs that rarely change with the seasons. Your situation can prioritize one set of needs over another. You may find it difficult to relate to others with a sharply different priority of needs. Especially if falsely assuming they choose to need differently. When living in less densely populated areas, you objectively prioritize providing more for yourself without relying too much on public institutions. You gravitate toward conservative values. Conservatism gives outward expression for your inward priority of self-sufficiency that you did not choose. You objectively require less government intrusion to fully function. When residing in more densely populated areas, you objectively prioritize utilizing public institutions more and more. You gravitate toward liberal or even progressive values. Liberalism or progressivism gives you outward expression of your inward priority for social support that you did not choose. You objectively require more government involvement to fully function. Anankelogy instills the discipline that objective priorities shape our political and judicial preferences more than strong arguments. We’re naturally attracted to political or judicial arguments that most align with our objective priorities. We don’t choose our needs; our needs choose us . We best choose to respect each other’s objective priorities of needs. Need-response Need-response challenges the popular yet failing assumption that our political and judicial conflicts are best settle by might. The prevailing argument favoring one side easily ignores the objective priority of needs of the other side. And that sets up the context for the next politicized or adjudicated confrontation. Reactive Problem Current standards assume we resolve conflicts with the best argument. This conveniently ignores how the side with the most resources tends to sound more persuasive, often getting their way. Moreover, the squashed needs of the losing side easily comes back to haunt the coerced settlement . Denouncing violence without addressing the unmet needs fueling that violence tends to fuel more violence. Outwardly, it may appear a politicized or adjudicated issue was settled. Then we wonder why the losing side cannot remain content with the results of our democratic process. Objective needs and objective priorities do not submit to majority vote. Expecting our institutions to change the inflexible reality of each other’s priorities now collapses public trust in those institutions. They can never deliver what many expect if clinging to this notion that the priorities of others can be changed to fit our own priorities. That’s simple a recipe for more violence, visible or invisible. Responsive Solution Need-response raises the bar by first identifying the inflexible needs and inflexible priorities on each side of a conflict. While combative politics and the adversarial judicial process takes the easier win-lose path, need-response can create better outcomes with its win-win approach. Instead of coercing the public to accept one priority of impersonal laws over another to ease pain, need-response helps each side to remove cause for pain by resolving needs each priority of needs more fully. Instead of coercing the plaintiff and defendant to accept one side’s priority over the other, need-response guides each side to melt the conflict and heal any damage with the higher power of love . Need-response brings all sides together to illuminate their inflexible priority of needs. Then incentivizes all sides to find the best way to resolve the inflexible needs by adjusting their flexible side of how they address each other’s needs. Distinguishing between inflexible needs or inflexible priorities and any flexible response to them can be critical to resolving politicized and adjudicated conflicts. The fact our political and judicial institutions overlook this critical distinguish is a key reason why they are failing. The further these institutions pull us away from loving one another, the less reason to trust them to produce good outcomes. Instead of privileging animosity and hate, let’s get back to loving one another. Instead of spurring antagonism and even hate by trying to manipulate others to serve your own priority at the expense of their inflexible priority, need-response dares you to honor their inflexible priority as you would have them honor your inflexible priority. Such love sets our higher moral standard and we must not back down, lest our objective levels of functioning is allowed to decay further. Need-response brings the discipline to honestly engage each other. To identify the inflexible needs on all sides. To stop provoking either side’s animosity toward the other, but instead nurture greater respect for each other’s less visible affected needs and priorities. That’s how targeted institutions can earn the empirically based legitimacy to impact our lives. Any person or institution resisting this higher standard of love risks being marked as pariah. Once marked, they can be held personally and professionally responsible for our rising rates of anxiety, depression, addictions, and suicides. Not to cast them aside but to enforce the tough love that we mean business when avowing to fully resolve needs. Love permits us to do no less. 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 need-response effectively transform politics and the courts? People are too self-centered for this high-minded approach. How is this love different from romantic love and other kinds of love? How can I distinguish between what’s inflexible and what’s flexible in my own priorities? 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 Tennessee 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