E08 Conflict Principle

Which do you think is more likely?

You resolve your needs by applying reason to make optimal choices.

OR

You resolve your needs only when the essential means is accessible to you.

Anankelogy

Anankelogy recognizes a conflict occurs any time you cannot fully resolve some need without interference. You often settle for what you know is available to satisfy that need. The conflict may not completely go away, but the intensity of your pain will.

If a primary resource essential to fully resolve your need remains out of reach, you likely opt for the next best thing. You may have to partially satisfy your need with some alternative resource. If you cannot find a friend to listen, for example, you may opt to spill your frustrations with your AI chatbot. You may find it’s better than suffering the grinding pain of loneliness.

Anankelogy recognizes this as a shift from peakfunction, when all your needs promptly resolve, into symfunction, when some or all of your needs only partially resolve. You shift from reaching your potential to managing the dull pain of persisting unsatisfied needs.

Anankelogy recognizes pain only exists to warn you of some threat to your ability to fully function. Not fully resolving your needs presents a lingering yet mild threat to your full functioning capacity. Apart from unresolved needs, you feel no pain. Many of our needs remain unresolved on some level, so we often get used to continually feeling our body warning of such apparent threats.

Anankelogy recognizes this as “symfunction capture”. The less your needs resolve, the greater the risk of sliding into dysfunction or worse.

Need-response

Conflicts erupt when suffering the pain of unresolved needs. All the objective reasoning in the world cannot help you resolve needs when you’re blocked from primary resources. You naturally resist the likely downward pull into painful dysfunction.

Powerholders of various stripes hold the keys to your opportunity to fully resolve your needs. Need-responseenables you to speak truth to power in ways that incentivize them to listen to those impacted. The earned legitimacy of powerholders is at stake.

Reactive Problem

If you’re the powerholder, you may have observed the more you offer relief instead of supporting to resolve the underlying needs, the more those under your influence will accept your relief over the frightening alternative of getting stuck in pain. If offered peanuts over nothing, they settle for peanuts.

As someone under the powerful influence of another, you may realize the more you rely on them to ease the pain of your unresolved needs, the more you grow dependent on such pain relief. You may even become so emotionally attached to this familiar discomfort that you avoid the inherently good pain of resolving your needs.

We typically prefer the pain with which we've grown familiar over any unfamiliar pain. We know how to handle the daily dull grind we manage every day. We’re easily alarmed by any threat of pain we’ve never faced before, including the sharp and quite natural pain of resolving some of our underserved needs.

While under the thumb of unresponsive powerholders, we’re vulnerable to being coerced in adjusting to poor options. Then becoming dependent on these cheaper alternatives trapping us in pain. Such coerced poor options dependence (or CoPOD) undermines the legitimacy of those in authority.

Responsive Solution

Need-responserehumanizes impersonal authority. Its Impact Parity Model (IPM) posits the needs of the powerful on par with the needs of the relatively less powerful. All natural needs sit equal before nature, so this IPM ties the responsiveness of the powerless to the responsiveness of the powerful.

Need-response asserts the higher authority of resolving needs in love. Need-response assesses the responsiveness of us all to the needs we face. Authority proves less necessary where needs can freely resolve.

Need-response holds us all accountable to prioritize resolving needs over relieving pain, to remove cause for pain over perpetuating pain by leaving our needs unresolved. Temporary strategic pain relief is afforded to those with unbearable pain. Need-response challenges the legitimacy of any authority or powerholder coercing us to grow dependent on their pain relief offerings.

To break this habit of our "reactive pain relief” and “passive-aggressive pain relief”, need-response offers a free program to stretch your tolerance for the discomfort of resolving your needs. We also offer the wellness campaign to invite powerholders to join is in resolving needs, to remove pain, and raise our functioning.

All sides benefit as both the powerful and relatively powerless prioritize resolving needs over relieving unmet needs. The more needs we resolve, the less pain we suffer.

Responding to your needs

How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these:

• What if I am addicted to something I’ve long relied upon to ease my pain?

• How can you be sure every powerholder will submit to this reconciling process?

• I’m someone in position over others and I see no sign of contributing to their pain.

• What would it take to transform society to resolve needs over react pain relief norms?

Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below.