React Culture React culture consists of any social or cultural norm privileging anything less than properly resolving needs . react culture - privileged reactions Privileged reaction # 8 Bothsidesism misuse Smearing empathy for each side’s needs as false equivalency. properly resolving needs Bothsidesism misuse 8/8/26 1 Bothsidesism misuse Atomization culture Accountability diffusion Degraded social contract Indulgent side-taking Pathological pragmatism Projected antagonism Structural exaction Hyperrationality culture Ascribed legitimacy Dysfunction pathway Manipulative deception Permitted evil Pseudo-rationality Zero-sum thinking Hyperbole culture Bothsidesism misuse Excessive resourcing Mass institution mission creep Petty arguing debate Relativizing universal wisdom Avoidance culture Coerced compliance Gaslighting Moral conflation Premature defensiveness Self-incriminating denials Oppo culture Coerced poor options dependence Humanity loathing Normative alienation Privileged avoidance Shame shifting

< Back WFU LS Innocence and Justice 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

React Culture React culture consists of any social or cultural norm privileging anything less than properly resolving needs . react culture - privileged reactions Privileged reaction # 22 Permitted evil Privileged illicit actions not explicitly illegal or enforced. properly resolving needs Permitted evil 8/8/26 1 Permitted evil Atomization culture Accountability diffusion Degraded social contract Indulgent side-taking Pathological pragmatism Projected antagonism Structural exaction Hyperrationality culture Ascribed legitimacy Dysfunction pathway Manipulative deception Permitted evil Pseudo-rationality Zero-sum thinking Hyperbole culture Bothsidesism misuse Excessive resourcing Mass institution mission creep Petty arguing debate Relativizing universal wisdom Avoidance culture Coerced compliance Gaslighting Moral conflation Premature defensiveness Self-incriminating denials Oppo culture Coerced poor options dependence Humanity loathing Normative alienation Privileged avoidance Shame shifting

The Unexonerated: innocence profile < Back Terrell Jackson CA Terrell Jackson Estimated innocence score: 83 % Likely innocent when compared to cases already exonerated untested exculpatory DNA evidence lost by investigators Highlights of this wrongful conviction - hung jury at first trial - no criminal past - clear Brady violation - noble cause corrupted investigators Key contributing factors to this wrongful conviction not a factor - minor factor - major factor - central factor 1. Witness misidentification? 2. False confession? 3. Official misconduct? 4. Junk science? 5. Jail informant? 6. Inadequate defense? major factor major factor major factor major factor major factor major factor Other contributing factors How many other of 58 factors? 9 EIF version: E1.1 Click here to view more information at a separate website Click here for documentation to verify this innocence claim Wrongly convicted in CA of: manslaughter Wrongly convicted on September 24, 2001 Sentence: 10–25 years Custody status: prison Dive deeper into Terrell's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Terrell's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Terrell's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Terrell's compelling innocence Here is where the claimant admits the weak spots in their case. This is the "flip side" to their narrative. They put it out there to show they have nothing to hide. They proactively cultivate trust by being transparent. Nobody's perfect Synopsis This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will have a couple of sentences here that summarizes this compelling case of innocence. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. Summary Accuser's needs Other's needs See claimant's full Estimated Innocence Report Post-Conviction Journey Appeal results Every exonerated person had their case first reviewed by the judicial appeals process. Every time, the panel of judges overlooked the injustice of that miscarriage justice. The appellate process focuses on procedural standards. Is it possible to faithfully follow every procedural norm and still find an innocent person guilty? Yet, this happens much more frequently than many would like to admit. Most innocence projects remain under-resourced. Only a handful of lawyers, and often only law students or paralegals, invest hours going through case documents. They don't always find something that can be reversed in court. They tend to seek something they can trust will have a greater chance of being granted a hearing in court. And has a greater chance for success of a conviction reversal. They could risk their funding streams if championing cases with a harder, or little, chance to prevail in court. So they tend to serve those "low hanging fruit" cases of greater promise for overturning a wrongful conviction. Where does this leave the countless souls who are innocent in prison and beyond, who cannot get an innocence litigator to go to bat for them? That's what this Public Exoneration option is for. Innocence Movement Results Add your name to the petition to support exonerating Terrell Innocence support petition What do you think about this claim of innocence? First, select the innocence claimant "With what I know of the case, I think the claimant is...* First name* Last name* Email* Submit Your first name Your last name Email Based on what I know, I think the claimant is... Submit Thank you for your support. If we get enough supporters, we may launch our own Public Exoneration campaign. Learn more below. tally count Latest tally of feedback to this innocence claim. Clearly guilty 0 Likely guilty 0 Likely innocent 0 Clearly innocent 0 Appellate Process Presents mission creep of prioritizing its institutional needs over the needs of the public. Innocence Project Replicates this mission creep when working exclusively within the adversarial legal process. Public Exoneration Corrects this mission creep by prioritizing needs over institutionalized adversarial legalism. After the adversarial options repeatedly fail, the new professional service of need-response counters with a mutual process that responsibly addresses each other's needs. When hate keeps failing to produce desired outcomes, it's time to try the power of love . Learn more "I am exploring the option to build up a campaign that takes my pursuit for overdue exoneration to the court of public opinion." of Terrell Jackson Follow my Public Exoneration campaign. Consider becoming an active supporter for as little as $4.99 per week. Invest in restoring claimant’s freedom. Invest in yourself. Proxy for innocence claimant: Joanna Carson Public Exoneration progress: 0 How you can help us free Terrell The Public Exoneration campaign unfolds in five phases. We love for you to participate in this alternative approach to exonerating him. Overview PDI step 1 PDI step 2 PDI step 3 PDI step 1 Demonstrate your innocence Sets a foundation to display your innocence Introduction Preview the 12 questions Solve personal problems Download & complete worksheet Learn More... PDI step 2 Declare your innocence Publicly establishes your innocence Overview Verify addresses Upload finished worksheet We distribute it to key recipients Learn More... PDI step 3 Follow up Expand awareness of your innocence Engaging responsive authorities Incentivizing authorities' responses More responsive or reactive Your final answers to the 12 questions Learn More... Overview Is this for you? Prove your innocence without lawyers Demonstrate your innocence Declare your innocence Follow up Learn More... Quickly show how you are a wrongly convicted innocent person by how you’re among the few who took your case to trial. Despite being found guilty, show how you consistently maintained innocence. In the face of certain parole denial, you faithfully stood your ground. This service works primarily for those who have already done their time. But now cannot get a meaningful job or find stable housing. All because of an undeserved felony record. For only a $49.48 one-time fee, establish your innocence with your own record of proven integrity. Let us inform the DA of your demonstrable innocence. We presort your claim of viable innocence for them. No lawyers involved. We incentivize the DA and others to recognize your demonstrated innocence. If they dare refuse, we are ready to appeal to the higher court of public opinion. Failure is not an option. Share this profile on social media to help spread the word. Thank you. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link How you can help us free Terrell The Public Exoneration campaign unfolds in five phases. We love for you to participate in this alternative approach to exonerating him. FIT BASE phase TEAM phase GROW phase GOAL phase BASE phase Set a firm foundation Sets a foundation to display your innocence Leverage your innocence Gain need-responsive skills Solve personal problems Invite peer supporters Learn More... Review your Estimated Innocence Report with your need-responder. Develop strategies to optimize its strengths and address any weaknesses. Together, you craft your dynamic “exoneration plan”. Learn to proactively endure discomforts, to resolve conflicts with authorities, to relate more integrally with reality, and more. Sharpen these skills to later incentivize unresponsive authorities. Get any personal problems out of the way. Improve yourself where you can. Remove any doubt that you are innocent of the conviction. Set the tone for your immanent exoneration. Invite friends and family who believe in your innocence. Learn to show them how they can back your efforts. And how they can attract more backers to support your case of compelling innocence. TEAM phase Build your support team Publicly establishes your innocence Onboard peer supporters to your team Practice your new skills Solve interpersonal problems Invite professional sponsors Learn More... Incentivize your followers to upgrade as supporters and contributors. Show them how they can personally benefit by becoming more centrally involved. Or at least by participating. Guide your contributors to develop the same need-responsive skills you recently sharpened. Invite your supporters to watch, to encourage them to develop these skills on their own. With these new skills, work on any interpersonal problems. Practice solving problems. Demonstrate your capacity to endure discomforts. Publicly validate your innocence. Introduce innocence lawyers and other innocence activists to this alternative to adversarial legalism. Invite then to sponsor your campaign to boost their legitimacy. Incentivize their involvement. GROW phase Engage innocence lawyers Expand awareness of your innocence Leverage your growing support Onboard professional sponsors Learn to solve power problems Practice speaking truth to power Learn More... Let your growing support network publicize your innocence, your testament to human endurance, your readiness to face conflict with respect for each other’s affected needs, and more. Demonstrate these skills to supportive professionals. Incentivize them to improve their responsiveness to neglected needs with such skills. Vouch for their improved responsiveness. Assess the responsiveness of professionals to your compelling case of innocence. Demonstrate how mutual regard for each other’s needs create s better results than legalistic adversarialism. Invite the most supportive professionals to practice these skills with you. Learn to speak the truth of your innocence in ways that authorities will openly listen. GOAL phase Engage the prosecutor Incentivize authorities to exonerate you Hold court of informed public opinion Replace cold adversarialism with love Effectively address structural problems Declare your avowed liberty Learn More... Give the courts every reason to process your innocence claim. Let them compete with the court of public opinion, as your team connects with media outlets to publicize your case. Upend the norms of the adversarial judicial process by demonstrating this more loving approach to solving conflicts. Let your loving character boldly exemplify your innocence. Unpack the imposing social norms that hinder just outcomes. Invite prosecutors, judges and policymakers to shift incentives. Publicly reward just outcomes over conviction rates. Declare your widely supported innocence before a candid world. Let your support network contest the legitimacy of any official resistance to exonerate you. Reward all who do the right thing. FIT Check if it’s a good fit This is a preliminary phase to prepare the way Self -assessment Invite supporters Get prepared Meet your service provider Learn More... Start by checking if this unique service is a good fit for you. Can the innocence claimant lead this effort themselves? Or should they delegate the leading role to another? Spread the costs early by inviting friends and family to back your wellness campaign. For free for them to merely follow. Or $4.99 per week for them to participate. Or $14.99 each week to get hem centrally involved. Get oriented to how this service operates. Connect with others exploring this alternative. Learn how this process takes a pioneering approach toward exoneration. Meet the professional need-responder. First through texting. Then in person online. No financial commitment for the first thirty days. I want to support Share this profile on social media to help spread the word. Thank you. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Exonerating Terrell If the public exoneration campaign has already begun, check here at your level of support. Please note that until you join their campaign, none of these will be accessible. Followers, Supporters & Contributors Follow developments of their exoneration campaign. Progress Updates Supporters & Contributors Join the forum actively supporting their exoneration campaign. Exoneration Forum Contributors only Oversee activities contributing to their ultimate exoneration. Executive Committee sample testimonials Tanya Simpson , Claimant's cousin I was skeptical at first. I mean, how can something outside the official process help my cousin? Then I was pleasantly surprised by the amazing results. Jonathan Glenn , Claimant's coworker I always knew that Claimant was fully innocent of all charges. Now I'm glad to be a part of process that can finally help liberate my friend. Daniel Walker , Claimant's father These have been some painful years waiting for the legal process to correct this mess. Thankfully, this alternative is finally helping to bring my child home. < Back Next >

Power Problems Power problems occur when impactors impede impactees trying to properly resolve needs . power problems & power-impacted needs properly resolving needs Power problem ID: A05 Universal Cultural Incompetence Insensitive to valuable differences cultural incompetence cultural competency < previous next > Cultural Incompetence Neglecting the impactee’s culturally different values or perspectives, where the impactor potentially pressures the impactee to fit into their cookie cutter cultural norms. The impactee may rightly fear some form of retribution for not fitting into the impactor’s cultural expectation. Or feel their full value remains overlooked and their contributions routinely neglected. cultural competency The further along the cultural competence continuum , the more trustworthy the impactor to those vulnerable impactees who valuably exist and properly act outside of mainstream cultural norms. Whether a healthcare provider or a different impactor, the impactor's responsiveness to impactee cultural differences fall along a recognized continuum: Stage 1. Cultural Destructiveness Stage 2. Cultural Incapacity Stage 3. Cultural Blindness Stage 4. Cultural Precompetence Stage 5. Cultural Competence and Proficiency Need-response can guide the targeted impactor to improve their cultural competency by walking them through the need-response process with an impactee. The impactor learns to appreciate the impactee's hidden value and how to properly address anything that is not appropriate simply because it is culturally different. The impactee can then contribute more of their full value when free to be their authentic selves. And their differentness can invite the impactor to inquire if the impactee sees something that the impactor cannot through the lens of their own familiarity bias. The impactor then earns legitimacy to reliably impact impactees who are culturally different from oneself. And gain competitive legitimacy when tapping into impactees' unique perspectives. Cultural Incompetence Corrupting Influence Cognitive Contraction Coercive Compliance Coerced Poor Options Dependence

You don't exist for human authority; human authority exists for you. < Back F03 Authority Principle List of all principles You don't exist for human authority; human authority exists for you. Image: Pixabay – Pexels (click on meme to see source image) Summary The longer institutional authority exists, the more it tends to shift from primarily serving its founding purpose to increasingly serving itself at the expense of its founding purpose. When trying to coerce you to serve its ends at odds with your inflexible needs, you understandably acquiesce to avoid its wrath. But the more authority creates the conditions for its own necessity, the less legitimate it can be. Description Which do you think is more likely? You must submit to every authority positioned over you. OR Authority must respond to needs for us to legitimately submit to it. Anankelogy This echoes the documented words of Jesus : “The Sabbath rest was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath rest.” Goes to show you that even in biblical times, authority tends to drift from its founding purpose to increasingly serve itself at other’s expense. Often at the expense of that founding purpose. This is known as mission creep . Every authority emerged from a situation in which someone had to take charge. For example, when confronted by an enemy tribe or reacting to a sudden flood. Someone or some group was trusted to coordinate the larger group away from harm. If this incipient authority proved trustworthy in this initial crisis, then it often remained in a position of social power to continue overseeing the needs of the larger group. An ad hoc committee can evolve into a professional force wielding considerable influence. Sociology observes how authority tends to shift from primarily serving its founding purpose to increasingly serving itself. In a general sense, this given power corrupts those in charge as their priorities swing from sacrificially serving the urgent needs of the larger group to professionally serving in a role with certain privileges. Over time, such authority posits itself as essential for the people’s wellbeing. Privileged authority tends to coerce individuals, now vulnerable to their influence, to unquestioningly accept their power. Authority may then invert the relationship, when demanding the served people now serve and submit to it. Need-response Authority operates from its recognized legitimacy, to be trusted to lead or influence others. The more a trusted authority undermines the needs of those they impact, the more they lose that trust. The less they are trusted, the less legitimate that authority. Need-response recognizes the possibility of a new authority emerging to replace another that has lost its legitimacy. That effectively occurred with the American Revolution, as the U.S. Constitution emerged in response to the failing legitimacy of the 18th century British authorities. As history appears to repeat itself, U.S. hegemony appears to privilege U.S. authority to act with fewer accountabilities for its impactful actions. Need-response counters with “responsive authority” that earns its legitimacy by measurably enabling society’s members to resolve their needs, remove their pain and restore their wellness. Reactive Problem Authority figures don’t know what they don’t know. Those under their care typically do not go out of their way to tell them. The influenced don’t know what the influencers don’t know, nor think to ask. The influenced naturally avoid the risk of any retribution. They will at least appear to honor the authority figure’s apparently reasonable demands. An inherent adversarial relation keeps them alienated from each other. Authority figures feel many of the same needs as those under their influence. They too need such qualities as empathy, kindness, grace, trust, and patience. But those of us under some authority rarely if ever think of the vulnerable needs of those in powerful positions. We generally assume they must take care of those needs on their own, or with higher authorities. We rarely if ever consider how they need us to be patient with them, or gracious to them as they make some harmless mistake, or gentle with them when they lose resources to adequately fulfill their role. They hurt as we hurt, yet we typically expect them to not feel and just perform their professional role without complaint. Responsive Solution Authority figures typically seek to serve the needs of the people under their care, but lack awarenessof their actual impact. They require impact data . They could design their own survey to gather such data. But they unlikely know what to properly ask to effectively serve your vulnerable needs . The less their questions speak to your needs, the less likely you will respond . Need-response bridges this chasm of normative alienation with mutual regard . It’s how need-response incentivize powerholders to respond to the relatively powerless like you. It equalizes power relations . You need to speak your truth to power, but you also need them to listen and effectively respond. They need your impact data to remain competitively competent, but they also need to answer to all their constituents. POWERLESS NEEDS – POWERHOLDER NEEDS SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER - LISTEN TO THOSE IMPACTED Each side needs each other. Need-response creates an environment for both sides to honor the other’s sides needs to everyone’s benefit. Powerholder’s engagement with those impacted melds with the impacted providing social proof of their effectiveness of leadership. Each side does their part to counter the disabling problem of avoidant adversarialism . Each side incentivizes the other to appreciate authority’s effectiveness stretches no further than each other’s affected wellness. Each side ensures authority faithfully serves our wellness instead of coercing our wellness to serve authority. 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: Does this apply only to government or state authority, or to other “authorities” as well? How can need-response check the powerful from overreaching its authorities? What about overbearing authority of written laws? Honestly, it’s not easy to realize when authority coerces me into going against my actual needs. 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

React Culture React culture consists of any social or cultural norm privileging anything less than properly resolving needs . react culture - privileged reactions Privileged reaction # 32 Zero-sum thinking Privileging a winner-take-all falsehood. properly resolving needs Zero-sum thinking 8/8/26 1 Zero-sum thinking Atomization culture Accountability diffusion Degraded social contract Indulgent side-taking Pathological pragmatism Projected antagonism Structural exaction Hyperrationality culture Ascribed legitimacy Dysfunction pathway Manipulative deception Permitted evil Pseudo-rationality Zero-sum thinking Hyperbole culture Bothsidesism misuse Excessive resourcing Mass institution mission creep Petty arguing debate Relativizing universal wisdom Avoidance culture Coerced compliance Gaslighting Moral conflation Premature defensiveness Self-incriminating denials Oppo culture Coerced poor options dependence Humanity loathing Normative alienation Privileged avoidance Shame shifting

There is no greater revolution than to revolve back to love. < Back H04 Love Principle List of all principles There is no greater revolution than to revolve back to love. Image: Pixabay - Engin_Akyurt (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more any revolution upends how any one faction can address their needs, the more such a social disruption plants the seeds for another revolution of drastic political change. The more any sweeping societal change enables mutual respect toward resolving more needs, the greater staying power such a transformation can have. We all function better with the mutual respect of love. Description If stuck in a tyrannical situation, which do you think would produce better results? Political change that replaces one ideology with another. OR Political change that inspires us all to be more loving to all.What we can now understand with anankelogical insight. Anankelogy Academic anankelogy. For now, this serves as placeholder text. When I find the time, I will post the full deal here. Any drastic change that favors one group’s needs over another easily provokes pushback. Anankelogy posits a predictable cycle unfolds for each revolution. If accountably more responsive to the people’s needs, then that revolution can take hold. If violently more reactive to the point of neglecting the people’s needs, such a revolution cannot last. This cyclic pattern presents in for phases: Dynamic – new following : A fresh approach to neglected needs gains a foothold, then gains popular support with growing traction. Dogmatism – new extremists : Much of it gets watered down to make it easier for wider adoption, which overlooks some needs. Disillusion – new detractors : Critics emerge to call out its neglect of the bigger picture, and these gain their own counter-following. Distinction: new ideas : Detractors champion a counternarrative that tends to pit themselves against the old guard. You could think of the third phase as the contrary group entering their first phase. And the fourth phase occurs when the contrary group steps into their version of the second phase. The more adversarial the revolution or introduced change, the more the new group predisposes its own eventual demise. Let’s illustrate this by comparing the American Revolution with the subsequent French Revolution. The US Constitution persists as a governing document, while the French approach ignited more resistance. Dynamic – new following : American revolutionaries called for more disciplined forms of governance, more responsive to the needs of the governed. French revolutionaries called for an overhaul of society will minimal attention to the affected needs of the governed. Dogmatism – new extremists : American revolutionaries amicably split between pro-central government Federalists and decentral government Anti-Federalists, sliding toward civil tensions mostly resolved. Frech revolutionaries split between monarchist Girondins and anti-royalist Jacobins, sliding towards insurrections and the Reign of Terror. Disillusion – new detractors : American revolutionaries spurred ideals that attracted calls for greater democracy by the early 19th Century, complementing the republican foundation. Frech revolutionaries spurred drastic changes that crashed the revolution within a decade, replaced by Napolean as Emperor. Distinction: new ideas : American revolutionaries eventually inspired greater inclusion of historically excluded peoples. Frech revolutionaries expelled the clergy and royalists to champion their own short-lived supremacy. The American system provides more room to honor the needs of others as one’s own. The French system imposed one’s own needs at the uncompensated expense of others. The American system encouraged mutuality, of a shared connection. The French system exploited adversarialism, of infighting and self-destruction. The more the American system now gravitates toward adversarialism, and away from mutual support of each other’s needs with love, the closer it draws to its own demise. Need-response Need-response seeks to replace adversarialism norms with mutuality practices. Instead of seeking drastic changes to relieve the pain of your own socially neglected needs, your supported as you endure the natural discomfort of resolving your own needs on par with others resolving theirs. The needs themselves never clash . Only how we respond to our competing needs. Adversarialism squanders our human potential to work through how best to address our competing needs, wasting precious energies and scant resources opposing each other’s inflexible needs . Mutuality, encouraged by the discipline of need-response, cultivates our human potential to love one another, to honor the needs of others as our own, and to maintain awareness of how each other’s actions impact each other’s inflexible needs. The aim is not to relieve pain, which risks perpetuating pain by neglecting the needs prompting the pain. Rather, the aim is to resolve as many of each other’s needs as possible. To improve wellness outcomes of all. Any drastic change that enables all to resolve more of their needs, with minimal to no negative impacts, tends to hold in place. The more response to needs, the better we all become. The more reactive to the pain of unmet needs, the worse we all become. Reactive Problem You may find the words of Jesus and others inspiring who assert love as our highest ideal. But then you regard that as merely aspirational, too unreachable to take seriously in our modern worlds. Instead of honoring the needs of others as your own, you’re quick to oppose them. Your own unmet needs burn inside you with a clawing sense of urgency. You find no space to consider what others may need. Especially if they seem cold toward you and your affected needs. Modernity expects you to take charge of your own needs. You agree that it’s irresponsible to wait on others. Each person must competitively fend for themselves. This hyper-individualism narrative fuels your false sense of urgency. If you must solve all of your own problems, even if part of it stems from elsewhere, then you best start now. But you honestly cannot pull yourself up by your bootstraps in every situation. Oversimplifying your individualism spells trouble. From your standardized isolation, you tend to react in ways worsening the situation. You generalize how to relieve the resulting pain, which overlooks the needs causing you pain. You cling to your trusted generalizations more as their familiarity provides your only promise for relief. Meanwhile, you lose sight of how the power of love can liberate you from this mess. Responsive Solution Need-response flips the script on overgeneralizing personal responsibility. Not be vacillating to the opposite extreme of collective responsibility. But by applying the discipline to exhaust all internal and external contributors affecting each need. And much more. Need-response can either complement or compete with current institutions and modalities trusted to address our needs. Only need-response asserts the power of love—or honoring the inflexible needs of others as our own—as its central guiding best practice. Need-response could revolutionize how we address our problems. Legalist systems of politics and adversarial justice tend to perform poorly. Need-response could replace much of their built-in limits. Instead of championing your self-interest, you seek to understand the inflexible needs of others. Instead of disagreeing with their questionable views, you relate to what shaped those views. Instead of provoking their defenses, you mutually engage each other’s affected needs. Instead of getting trapped in mutual defensiveness, you mutually understand each other. Instead of seeking policies to favor your interests, you mutually support resolving each other’s needs. Instead of provoking outrage and hate, we all encourage each other’s social love . Compared to the legalistic options of political change, a need-responsive revolution has potential to grow much deeper roots. The more responsive to everyone’s inflexible needs, the more sustainably it can improve our personal and shared wellness. That’s the durable power of 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: The more I honor the needs of some, the more they exploit me. So what do I do about that? What if I don’t want any revolution because I am content with the status quo? As a person of faith, I believe the power of God is the only source for a good revolution. I sense we need a revolution right now, before we all destroy ourselves. 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

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

< 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 The Need-Response podcast Trailer Need-Response trailer Quick introduction to the new podcast by the Anankelogy Foundation The video will appear here in a moment Video version of the full audio podcast Show notes Quick introduction to the new podcast by the Anankelogy Foundation The Need-Response podcast trailer Anankelogy Foundation 00:00 / 00:58 Welcome to the Need-Response podcast. Each Wednesday, we explore how the new professional service of need-response could help you solve more problems than other available options. Episode transcript PDF transcript for this episode Click on the button to view the full script of this episode Featured video clips These are the video clips featured in this episode. Click on the title to view it on YouTube. You also The video will appear here in a moment The video will appear here in a moment First video feature for this episode Second video feature for this episode Audiogram shorts View the snippets of this episode we posted online. Audiogram one will appear here shortly Audiogram two will appear here shortly Audiogram three will appear here shortly Audiogram four will appear here shortly Clip 1 Clip 2 Clip 3 Clip 4 Audiogram one will appear here shortly Audiogram two will appear here shortly Audiogram three will appear here shortly Audiogram four will appear here shortly Clip 5 Clip 6 Clip 7 Clip 8 Summary update Check here for a brief update on the progress of the need-response service. Trailer 00:00 / 00:38 Engagement Need-Response trailer Public Engagement Interact with the content of this episode by leaving a comment at our YouTube channel. Engage 1st video feature Engage 1st video feature Engage full episode We are cultivating a love-inspired culture of how best to engage each other. If we reply to your comment, or read a comment we leave for someone else, observe our uniquely responsive approach. Member Engagement You can learn more about how we cultivate more of our potential to be more loving toward one another by engaging us, and each other, by becoming a member of the Need-Responder Community . You can start for free, as a Follower . Follow the development of the need-response serve. Give your input Become a Supporter to help shape this new service. Engage us personally. Become an invested Contributor to help co-create this new service. Become one of its first professionals. Explore your membership options More Engagement NRC Follower $0 $ 0 Follow developments of creating this service Valid until canceled Select Receive updates on this service’s progress We engage your feedback on its development Follow its development Choose one that works for you best Already a Follower? Follower? Upgrade to join the discussion! Discuss at Need-Response creation forum text We invite you, financially invested subscribers, to give us your feedback to this episode. And to discuss its content amongst yourselves. If you are a Follower, you can upgrade your subscription to join the discussion here . Already a Supporter? text Follower? Upgrade to join the discussion! Discuss at Need-Response creation forum More Engagement NRC Supporter $5 $ 5 Every month Invest and co-create the need-response service Valid until canceled 7 day free trial Select Receive updates on service’s progress Engage your feedback on its development Apply your ideas to the service Vote on decisions shaping service Support its development Choose one that works for you best More Engagement NRC Contributor $25 $ 25 Every month Take the lead in developing this much needed service Valid until canceled 7 day free trial Select Receive updates on service’s progress Engage your feedback on its development Apply your ideas to the service Vote on decisions shaping service Test the need-response service Shape the need-response service Contribute to its development Choose one that works for you best Already a Contributor? Follower? Upgrade to join the discussion! text Discuss at Need-Response creation forum Next time In the next episode, we take you further into the journey of creating this pioneering service for you, with your helpful input. Previous episode Next episode

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 Glossary X < back to glossary menu no entries yet for X 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