Relating Terms

 

These terms are specifically directed to powerholders in formal power relations.

Power relations distort how well each side can resolve their needs. This is an attempt to illuminate the power-impacted needs in both sides of a power relation. Then to mutually resolve such needs, with a loving conciliatory process.

Relating Terms to powerholders

These are my need-responsive standards for our interaction with each other.

 

I publicly declare myself as need-responsive.

This is the first in five progressing stages presenting my need-responsiveness.

 

Welcome to need-response, a new professional field applying anankelogy, the new disciplined study of need. Learn more about need-response and anankelogy at Value Relating. This stage announces my committed responsiveness to mutually affected needs.

 

Welcome to a better way to relate to each other. These terms define and potentially enhance our relation to each other. As entities rely on stated terms for interactions, these terms introduce you to new parameters for your formal interaction with me.

 

Summary: Powerholders routinely coerce the relatively less powerful to settle for easing pain of their power relations impacted needs, resulting in many maladies on both sides of the power relation. Need-response counters the shortcomings in law, in politics, in adversarial justice, and other forms of recourse with a mutually beneficial conciliatory commitment to resolved needs on all sides, as set by these progressing terms of relating.

Relating Terms of Interaction

To announce a new way of relating, by introducing the new field of need-response.

 

Relating Terms of Exchange

To assess responsiveness to needs, establishing a need-responsive standard for all.

Relating Terms of Engagement

To audit impact upon needs, raising accountability for impacts upon the relatively less powerful.

 

Relating Terms of Results

To avow the liberty to resolve needs, tying legitimacy of power to positive impacts on needs.

 

Relating Terms of Use

To acclaim the higher authority of resolving needs, for which all authority ultimately exists.

 

 

You may understandably find this unsettling, jarring, or even objectionable. This is a necessary shift from the shortcomings of the prior status quo.

  • Laws are generally impersonal. Need-response shifts from the impersonal guidance of law to personally knowing each other’s affected needs.

  • Laws tend to be kept general and vague, to apply to diverse situations. Need-response serve as stepping stones to engaging each other’s impacted specifics.

  • Laws gravitate toward a minimum to avoid harm or offer relief from pain. Need-response goes beyond a minimal harm reduction or pain-relieving standard to resolve needs, which then removes pain and raises functionality.

 

 
 

Relating Terms of Interaction

These are my need-responsive standards for our interaction with each other.

 

I publicly declare myself as need-responsive.

This is the first in five progressing stages presenting my need-responsiveness.

 

Welcome to need-response, a new professional field applying anankelogy, the new disciplined study of need. Learn more about need-response and anankelogy at Value Relating. This stage announces my committed responsiveness to mutually affected needs.

 

Welcome to a better way to relate to each other. These terms define and potentially enhance our relation to each other. As entities rely on stated terms for interactions, these terms introduce you to new parameters for your formal interaction with me.

 

Summary: You are INVITED to replace our previous reliance upon impersonal laws with personal need-responsiveness to guide our interactions from this point forward.

Reintroduction

Whether you know me well, or know me from a distance, I reintroduce myself to you on fresh terms. Old assumptions about me and our relation are to be questioned, to improve outcomes for us both. And to improve out impacts upon others, including those we do not even personally know.

 

As these terms reset any presumed expectations between us, you are welcome to reply with your own set terms. The less your given terms accord with anankelogy principles, the more distant we are to remain from each other. We can continue to dialogue how best to respect each other’s affected needs, starting with this first step in our realignment.

 

Realignment

Please read these assertions to appreciate this realignment of our interactions, to accountably resolve our mutually affected needs. All prior interactions presume our interactions shall be guided primarily by impersonal norms.

 

Prior interactions leaned heavily on impersonal laws to guide our assumptions and actions. From this point forward, the standard is set higher than the law’s harm-reducing and pain-relieving standards.

 

I can only maintain need-responsiveness as others are responsive to my affected needs. The less I can resolve my needs due to limits imposed by others, especially from those with the influential power to limit my access to necessary resources, the less I can be sustainably need-responsive to you or to others.

 

Anankelogy

These terms rely heavily upon anankelogy, the disciplined study of need. These terms integrate a more thorough understanding of our less obvious impacts on each other’s needs. Without these proactive terms, our formal relation risks remaining constrained by limiting norms that routinely prevent full resolution of needs. These terms apply anankelogy in the form of need-response.

 

Need-response

BE INFORMED that, from now on, all our interactions shall be guided by need-responsiveness—a higher standard than arbitrary human law. You acknowledge any previous agreement between us not prioritizing resolution of needs sits at a lower standard than need-responsiveness.

 

By continuing any formal relation with me, you acknowledge my need to operate under a higher standard of need-responsiveness. Any failure to respond to expressed needs warrants a reexamination of our professional rapport. You then risk being targeted as opposing resolution of needs, as being need-unresponsive. Once targeted and determined as unresponsive, our relation will likely be terminated—at whatever cost to all parties involved.

 

By continuing any formal relation with me, you acknowledge these ten need-response principles to maintain need-responsiveness, including each assertion made within. You are free to question any statement, and have me identify its essential basis for need-responsiveness. You are free to terminate our formal relation, with a risk of your professional reputation as widely viewed as unresponsive to affected needs. You are encouraged to see how each of these higher standards can benefit you.

 

1. Knowing your impact on needs

You admit you do not know what you do not know, nor can you possibly independently know all the ways you impact others. You acknowledge the possibility of unknowingly harming others of relatively less influential power than you. You recognize you can improve your awareness of impacts with proper reporting tools that can provide scientifically sound data to guide your decision-making. In short, you humbly admit your lack of full scientific legitimacy.

 

2. Your democratic responsiveness

You admit it is against the grain of law to fully resolve needs, that laws themselves do not resolve needs. You acknowledge human laws are kept vague for diverse applicability, and therefore easily overlook each other’s specific needs when routinely applied. You admit the institutions of law and democracy can be manipulated by elites to serve their interests at the expense of the relatively less powerful. You further acknowledge representative democracy can only be as good as the options powerful elites offer on the ballot. You recognize we can transition from the general rule of law, and from overgeneralizing representative democracy, to the specifics of mutual need-responsiveness. In short, you humbly admit your lack of full legal and democratic legitimacy.

 

3. Your constitutional responsiveness

You admit all core needs sit equal before nature, that no one can healthily choose to submit their needs to serve laws nor institutions created to serve those needs. You acknowledge the risk for harm when institutions shift their focus from serving large-scale needs, for which they exist and remain commissioned to serve, to serving their own needs at the expense of the relatively less powerful. You recognize the standard to measure each other’s behavior by how well they help result in resolving needs. In short, you humbly admit your lack of full constitutional legitimacy.

 

4. Your inspirational responsiveness

You admit while no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs it exists to serve, that the point of law is to serve needs and not for law to force service to itself or to law enforcement. You acknowledge the “legal leverage” of those with greater resources to compel compliance from the relatively less powerful, who often acquiesce by seeking meaning for their inability to access the same level of legal, executive, judicial or legislative privilege. You recognize humanity’s diverse religious traditions have variously provided for the human need for meaning and purpose in ways we can now aspire through need-responsiveness. In short, you humbly admit your lack of full inspirational legitimacy.

 

5. Our wisdom to resolve needs

You admit we cannot solve our specific problems from the level of generalizing that created them, that avoiding specifics has an inverse correlation with resolving needs. You acknowledge your risk for harm if acting on unchecked generalizing about the relatively less powerful you impact. You recognize the wisdom to relying only upon the generalizations of universal principles, and the wisdom to know specifics for resolving needs together. In short, you humbly admit your lack of full wisdom legitimacy.

 

6. Our love to resolve needs

You admit there is no greater mortal authority than resolving needs in love, that when someone resolves their needs in ways resolving the needs of others, they express the highest authority mortally possible. You acknowledge the risk for harm when powerholders prioritize their needs over the relatively less powerful in the name of authority. You further acknowledge this hindering of need-resolving reinforces powerholders’ views that the relatively less powerful must be under the authority of powerholders privileged by impersonal law. You recognize the legitimacy of authority is best earned when all can freely resolve their needs in their incentivized mutual respect for each other, and how such love fulfills the reason authority exists. In short, you humbly admit you fall short of a full love legitimacy.

 

7. Your power accountability

You admit no mortal person nor institution has authority over any individual person’s needs, that the needs themselves exist by the higher authority of nature. You acknowledge powerholders knowingly or unknowingly coerce the relatively less powerful to serve powerholder interests at odds with the needs of the relatively powerless. You further acknowledge impersonal methods to hold powerholders accountable can be abused with little if any consequence to powerholders. You recognize human authority is most legitimate when accountable to its impacts on individual needs in a conciliatory manner. In short, you humbly admit you fall short of a full accountability standard.

 

8. Your support opportunity

You admit there is no such thing as pain apart from unresolved needs, that supporting all sides to an issue to resolve their affected needs remove cause for pain. You acknowledge powerholders needlessly cause pain and harm when hindering the support necessary to resolve needs. You recognize powerholders’ potential to support the relatively less powerful to resolve needs and you recognize as powerholders support the powerless to resolve more of their needs that this creates value for all. In short, you humbly admit you fall short of a full supportive standard.

 

9. Your power responsiveness

You admit “power” is not actually power unless it resolves needs, that otherwise it is merely coercive force. You acknowledge the capacity to influence the beliefs and actions of others can detract from needs, sometimes painfully and even lethally. You recognize the capacity to influence the beliefs and actions of others is best applied toward resolving needs on all sides. In short, you humbly admit you fall short of a full responsive standard.

 

10. Your impact validation

You admit unresolved needs result in higher rates of mental health deficits, and that the relatively less powerful face many barriers to resolve their needs from the influentially powerful. If powerfully impacting the relatively less powerful, you acknowledge your potential culpability for the prevalence of severe anxiety, major depression, coping addictions, suicidal ideation and acts, and other injurious maladjustments to your damaging power relations. You recognize wellness outcomes can improve the more each other’s needs fully resolve. In short, you humbly admit you fall short of a full impact standard.

 

Progressive terms

After these terms form the foundation for our relating on a higher standard, another set of need-responsive standards is to build upon these. They do not replace these standards, but will add depth to this new orientation to resolving all power relations impacted needs.

 

Adjustments to these terms

As needed, these terms may change to fit evolving situations. Being need-responsive requires vigilant understanding of each other’s impacted needs. These terms are provided as only one of many tools to ensure we help each other resolve needs.

 

Relating Terms of Exchange

These are my need-responsive standards for our exchange with each other.

 

I publicly declare myself as need-responsive.

This is the first in five progressing stages presenting my need-responsiveness.

 

Welcome to need-response, a new professional field applying anankelogy, the new disciplined study of need. Learn more about need-response and anankelogy at Value Relating. This stage announces my committed responsiveness to mutually affected needs.

 

Welcome to a better way to relate to each other. These terms define and potentially enhance our relation to each other. As entities rely on stated terms for interactions, these terms introduce you to new parameters for your formal interaction with me.

 

Summary: BE INFORMED these terms aim to balance the value we contribute to each other in our formal interactions.

Reintroduction

Whether you know me well, or know me from a distance, I reintroduce myself to you on fresh terms. Old assumptions about me and our relation are to be questioned, to improve outcomes for us both. And to improve out impacts upon others, including those we do not even personally know.

 

As these terms reset any presumed expectations between us, you are welcome to reply with your own set terms. The less your given terms accord with anankelogy principles, the more distant we are to remain from each other. We can continue to dialogue how best to respect each other’s affected needs, starting with this first step in our realignment.

 

Realignment

Please read these assertions to appreciate this realignment of our interactions, to accountably resolve our mutually affected needs. All prior interactions presume our interactions shall be guided primarily by impersonal norms.

 

Prior interactions leaned heavily on impersonal laws to guide our assumptions and actions. From this point forward, the standard is set higher than the law’s harm-reducing and pain-relieving standards.

 

I can only maintain need-responsiveness as others are responsive to my affected needs. The less I can resolve my needs due to limits imposed by others, especially from those with the influential power to limit my access to necessary resources, the less I can be sustainably need-responsive to you or to others.

 

Anankelogy

These terms rely heavily upon anankelogy, the disciplined study of need. These terms integrate a more thorough understanding of our less obvious impacts on each other’s needs. Without these proactive terms, our formal relation risks remaining constrained by limiting norms that routinely prevent full resolution of needs. These terms apply anankelogy in the form of need-response.

 

Need-response

BE INFORMED that, from now on, all our interactions shall be guided by need-responsiveness—a higher standard than arbitrary human law. You acknowledge any previous agreement between us not prioritizing resolution of needs sits at a lower standard than need-responsiveness.

 

By continuing any formal relation with me, you acknowledge my need to operate under a higher standard of need-responsiveness. Any failure to respond to expressed needs warrants a reexamination of our professional rapport. You then risk being targeted as opposing resolution of needs, as being need-unresponsive. Once targeted and determined as unresponsive, our relation will likely be terminated—at whatever cost to all parties involved.

 

By continuing any formal relation with me, you acknowledge these ten need-response principles to maintain need-responsiveness, including each assertion made within. You are free to question any statement, and have me identify its essential basis for need-responsiveness. You are free to terminate our formal relation, with a risk of your professional reputation as widely viewed as unresponsive to affected needs. You are encouraged to see how each of these higher standards can benefit you.

 

1. Assessing your impact on needs

You are invited to see how the more you impact the relatively powerless like me, the less I can fully function to respect your needs. You are expected to realize how the more you ignore your impact on the relatively powerless like me, the more I am forced to fight, flee or freeze. You are expected to acknowledge my avoidance options and my adversarial options, and to recognize the potential threat these narrow options are to both you and to me. You are welcomed to replace such negative options with the more conciliatory option of power advocacy, where we mutually support resolving each other’s power-impacted needs. You are welcomed to work with us to improve your scientific legitimacy.

 

2. Assessing your democratic responsiveness

You are invited to see how the more you limit access to the law and the more you limit ballot options, the less the institutions of representative democracy, law enforcement and the judiciary holds valuable meaning for the most negatively impacted among the powerless. You are expected to realize legislated norms can only be as legitimate as their positive impact on our affected needs. You are welcomed to discover with us how to transition from impersonal law and from impersonal representative policymaking to a conciliatory approach accountably resolving each other’s publicly impacted needs. You are welcomed to work with us to improve your legal and democratic legitimacy.

 

3. Assessing your constitutional responsiveness

You are invited to see how the more you rely on arbitrary generalizations in your interactions with the powerless, the less likely you respect our constitutional rights. You are expected to realize how the less our rights are served, the more prone we are to vacillate between damaging avoidance options and damaging adversarial options. You are welcomed to discover with us the mutual benefits of a more conciliatory approach grounded in universal principles for resolving more needs. You are then welcomed to work with us to improve your constitutional legitimacy.

 

4. Assessing your inspirational responsiveness

You are invited to see the more you deviate from traditional sources of sacred inspiration, as demonstrated by rationalizing failures of institutions to self-justify your disrespect for our needs, the less our confidence in you and in your institutions. You are expected to realize the more we suffer failures of institutions to respect our impacted needs, the more we rely on scripture or other inspirational sources over you and your cherished institutions. You are welcomed to discover with us you how to improve the relevancy and inspirational legitimacy by improving your responsiveness to our impacted needs.

 

5. Assessing your wisdom to resolve needs

You are invited to see how the more you base your actions in self-interest, the less you can be responsive our vulnerably exploited needs. You are expected to realize the more your selfish actions leave us in pain, the more likely we rely on generalizations for relief from the mounting pain. You are welcomed to discover with us how to improve your wisdom legitimacy by grounding your actions in need-resolving principles applicable to all.

 

6. Assessing your love to resolve needs

You are invited to see how the more you prioritize the needs of others over your own, the more we can trust you and your institutions. You are expected to realize the more you prioritize your own needs over our impacted needs, the less legitimate you or your institutions impact us. You are welcomed to discover with us how we can prioritize each other’s needs to competitively earn the love legitimacy to rightly impact another’s needs.

 

7. Assessing your accountability

You are invited to see how the more you pressure us to serve your interest at the cost of sacrificing to you our own interests, the more your coercive power detracts from legitimacy to affect our needs. You are expected to realize power not kept accountable to its impacts becomes complicit in our increasing rates of anxiety, depression, addictive coping mechanisms, suicide ideation and other maladies fragmenting our communities and disintegrating the nation as a whole. You are welcomed to discover with us how to raise your legitimacy with an accountability standard linking your power to how well you wield it publicly.

 

8. Assessing your support

You are invited to see how the more you support our needs, the more we can support your needs. You are expected to realize the less you support the needs your power impacts, the less we can support your personal or institutional needs. You are expected to realize the more your past or present actions traumatize us, the much more support we need to restore to optimal functioning. You are welcomed to discover with us the steps necessary to establish a sufficient supportive standard to improve your legitimacy to remain involved in our power-traumatized lives.

 

9. Assessing your responsiveness

You are invited to see how the more responsive you are to our publicly vulnerable needs, the more responsive we can be to the requirements of the law and to optimally respect what you expect of me. You are expected to realize your failure to be responsive to the needs we express you impact, the less legitimate you or any authority to enforce norms benefiting you at my expense. You are welcomed to discover with us how to raise your responsive standard with a conciliatory process can nurture mutual responsiveness to each other’s affected needs.

 

10. Assessing your impact validity

You are invited to see how the more you impact us negatively without responsive correction, the less validity you possess to remain involved in our lives. You are expected to realize the more your power coerces us into giving you more than we can honestly afford, you become complicit in structural exaction that coerces us into transfer more value than we would sacrifice if you did not pressure us from a position of power. You are welcomed to discover with us how you routinely extract more from us than we can sustain giving, and then discover how you can restore legitimacy with an impact standard that gives you opportunity to compensate for any hidden costs you legally or illegally exacted from us in your exercise of power.

 

Progressive terms

After these terms form the foundation for our relating on a higher standard, another set of need-responsive standards is to build upon these. They do not replace these standards, but will add depth to this new orientation to resolving all power relations impacted needs.

 

Adjustments to these terms

As needed, these terms may change to fit evolving situations. Being need-responsive requires vigilant understanding of each other’s impacted needs. These terms are provided as only one of many tools to ensure we help each other resolve needs.

 

Relating Terms of Engagement

These are my need-responsive standards for engaging each other.

 

I publicly declare myself as need-responsive.

This is the first in five progressing stages presenting my need-responsiveness.

 

Welcome to need-response, a new professional field applying anankelogy, the new disciplined study of need. Learn more about need-response and anankelogy at Value Relating. This stage announces my committed responsiveness to mutually affected needs.

 

Welcome to a better way to relate to each other. These terms define and potentially enhance our relation to each other. As entities rely on stated terms for interactions, these terms introduce you to new parameters for your formal interaction with me.

 

Summary: WE ASSERT the universal need to engage each other beyond institutional binary opposites, to freely address relevant specifics, to ensure a responsive path toward mutual resolution of impacted needs. 

Reintroduction

Whether

 

 

Realignment

Please read these assertions to appreciate this realignment of our interactions,

Anankelogy

These terms rely heavily upon anankelogy, the disciplined study of need. These terms integrate a more thorough understanding of our less obvious impacts on each other’s needs. Without these proactive terms, our formal relation risks remaining constrained by limiting norms that routinely prevent full resolution of needs. These terms apply anankelogy in the form of need-response.

 

Need-response

BE INFORMED that, from now on, all our interactions shall be guided by need-responsiveness—a higher standard than arbitrary human law. You acknowledge any previous agreement between us not prioritizing resolution of needs sits at a lower standard than need-responsiveness.

 

By continuing any formal relation with me, you acknowledge my need to operate under a higher standard of need-responsiveness. Any failure to respond to expressed needs warrants a reexamination of our professional rapport. You then risk being targeted as opposing resolution of needs, as being need-unresponsive. Once targeted and determined as unresponsive, our relation will likely be terminated—at whatever cost to all parties involved.

 

By continuing any formal relation with me, you acknowledge these ten need-response principles to maintain need-responsiveness, including each assertion made within. You are free to question any statement, and have me identify its essential basis for need-responsiveness. You are free to terminate our formal relation, with a risk of your professional reputation as widely viewed as unresponsive to affected needs. You are encouraged to see how each of these higher standards can benefit you.

 

1. Discovering your impact on needs

You agree to remain open to information to ensure your application of powerful influence optimizes the resolution of all affected needs. You concede the fact that without ongoing information from those you powerfully impact, your influence risks coercing the relatively less powerful against mutually resolving affected needs. You affirm your need for our unhindered feedback to ensure positive outcomes for all.

 

2. Checking your democratic responsiveness

You agree as a powerholder structurally removed from my personal life that you routinely overlook how your influence specifically impacts me, either for good or ill. This includes acknowledging the alienating effect of impersonal laws with your “legal leverage” that grants you “access to a better team of lawyers, and ability to pay them sufficiently to take the time to optimize every legal loophole and personally incentivize every judicial actor, to gain a favorable case at the expense of the needs of the relatively less powerful.” You concede there is measurable room for improvement in knowing how you impact me, and how your power impacts others who are also relatively powerless to you. You also concede the quality of representative democracy is no better than the options powerholders make available on the ballot. You affirm your impact on my needs from a position of power potentially limits my liberty to resolve needs that laws and democracy exist to serve.

 

3. Checking your constitutional responsiveness

You agree the relatively powerless are vulnerable to the powerful for their large-scale needs—like national defense, protection from domestic forms of violence, trustworthy food and water supply, publicly available healthcare, and credentialed learning. You agree the relatively powerless are vulnerable to “mass institutions” providing for such large-scale needs—like the military, law enforcement, the food and water marketplace, health institutions, and educational institutions. You concede such mass institutions created to serve these needs tend to prioritize their own self-survival at the expense of the needs they exist to serve. You also concede how the relatively less powerful tend to suffer fewer large-scale needs resolved as a consequence of such mass institution mission creep. You concede mass institutions are structured to favor manageable generalizing with opposing binaries over addressing nuanced specific needs of the relatively powerless, and to offer relief from the continuing pain of unresolved large-scale needs over removing that pain by resolving large-scale needs. You affirm how fully resolving large-scale needs can improve our personal and interpersonal functioning, as you recognize large-scale needs resolve more readily by actions grounded in universal principles than arbitrary preferences of mass institutions themselves.

 

4. Checking your inspirational responsiveness

You agree mass institutions present a conflict of interest when its processes depend on those it exists to serve to defer to the institutions’ needs. You concede those mass institutions relying on oppositional options are incentive to rationalize their ineffectiveness by overlooking how such opposing binary options limits resolution of needs it exists to serve. You concede oppositional binary options run counter to the higher moral standards established in most scriptural traditions. You affirm my ability to respect your needs can be no greater than how you, in a position of power imposing oppositional binary options over me, impact my needs.

 

5. Checking your wisdom to resolve needs

You agree mass institutions rely on generalized approaches to those they exist to serve, more as a manageable convenience than a trustworthy means to address specific needs of those served. You concede mass institutions incentivize those they exist to serve to accept the given generalizations as the only available way to address their impacted needs. You concede this narrowing of options result in less need resolving and you concede this contributes to more maladies. While you may claim “we do not want to make the perfect an enemy of the good,” you concede this applied as a popular generalization tends to unwisely replace excellence with the intolerable mediocrity of fewer resolved needs. You affirm the necessity of fully resolving needs in principled ways to restore each other’s optimal functioning and remove pain.

 

6. Checking your love to resolve needs

You agree any divisive or adversarial process based on generalizations is less mature than a conciliatory process for mutually responding to each other’s specifically affected needs. You concede power applied from prematurely hostile institutions demonstrate less legitimacy than an alternative enabling each other to actively respond or even resolve each other’s needs. You affirm the higher standard of love that affirms each other’s value over any authority that demeans or overlooks each other’s specific value.

 

7. Checking your accountability

You agree insufficient accountability for one’s actions raises the risk of harming each other in a formal power relation, especially the less powerful vulnerable one in a power relation. You concede the possibility of illicitly harming the vulnerable in formal power relations in ways privileged by laws and norms, sometimes to the point of provoking a violent reaction within the vulnerable who desperately seeks to escape the painful damage you are privileged to cause. You affirm we both can benefit from improved accountability for any of our actions impacting each other.

 

8. Checking your support

You agree to remain open to opportunities for being more supportive of the vulnerable in formal power relations. You concede your social standing depends in part upon how proactively supportive you are to those you are prone to harm from your advantaged position in society. You affirm you will respond to invitations for invited support at the level of your capacity to give that support, knowing insufficient support to those inviting you, and in most need of it, can cost you graduated degrees of social standing.

 

9. Checking your responsiveness

You agree there is room for you to be responsive to the relatively powerless in formal power relations, whether you directly impact them or not. You concede any dismissiveness towards the complaints of the relatively powerless exposes you to critiquing and potentially denouncing your social standing. You affirm the need to reciprocate the responsiveness of the vulnerable to your needs with relatively equal responsiveness to their needs, and remain open to their feedback to indicate any room for improving your responsiveness to them and to the similarly powerless.

 

10. Checking  your impact validity

You agree you benefit from social structures that permit you to gain more concessions from the relatively powerless in formal power relations than they intend to give. You concede you render the relatively powerless in power relations even less powerful the more you extract value in privileged ways, whether you intend to extract such value or not. You affirm the validity of engaging with the powerless in power relations depends on how you recompense in equal or greater value the value you coerce from the relatively powerless. You further affirm the right of the powerless to express grievances by translating such exacted value in transactional terms, notably in the form of an “exaction invoice” for putting the exacted value in calculated economic terms. Further, you consent to a doubling the calculated exaction value if characterizing or alleging this process as punishable extortion, which shall expose your coercive attempt to impose legal leverage against an attempt to mutually resolve impacted needs.

 

Progressive terms

After these terms form the foundation for our relating on a higher standard, another set of need-responsive standards is to build upon these. They do not replace these standards, but will add depth to this new orientation to resolving all power relations impacted needs.

 

Adjustments to these terms

As needed, these terms may change to fit evolving situations. Being need-responsive requires vigilant understanding of each other’s impacted needs. These terms are provided as only one of many tools to ensure we help each other resolve needs.

 

Relating Terms of Results

These are my need-responsive standards for doing business with each other.

 

I publicly declare myself as need-responsive.

This is the first in five progressing stages presenting my need-responsiveness.

 

Welcome to need-response, a new professional field applying anankelogy, the new disciplined study of need. Learn more about need-response and anankelogy at Value Relating. This stage announces my committed responsiveness to mutually affected needs.

 

Welcome to a better way to relate to each other. These terms define and potentially enhance our relation to each other. As entities rely on stated terms for interactions, these terms introduce you to new parameters for your formal interaction with me.

 

Summary: You are INVITED to replace our previous reliance upon impersonal laws with personal need-responsiveness to guide our interactions from this point forward.

Reintroduction

Whether you know me well, or know me from a distance, I reintroduce myself to you on fresh terms. Old assumptions about me and our relation are to be questioned, to improve outcomes for us both. And to improve out impacts upon others, including those we do not even personally know.

 

As these terms reset any presumed expectations between us, you are welcome to reply with your own set terms. The less your given terms accord with anankelogy principles, the more distant we are to remain from each other. We can continue to dialogue how best to respect each other’s affected needs, starting with this first step in our realignment.

 

Realignment

Please read these assertions to appreciate this realignment of our interactions, to accountably resolve our mutually affected needs. All prior interactions presume our interactions shall be guided primarily by impersonal norms.

 

Prior interactions leaned heavily on impersonal laws to guide our assumptions and actions. From this point forward, the standard is set higher than the law’s harm-reducing and pain-relieving standards.

 

I can only maintain need-responsiveness as others are responsive to my affected needs. The less I can resolve my needs due to limits imposed by others, especially from those with the influential power to limit my access to necessary resources, the less I can be sustainably need-responsive to you or to others.

 

Anankelogy

These terms rely heavily upon anankelogy, the disciplined study of need. These terms integrate a more thorough understanding of our less obvious impacts on each other’s needs. Without these proactive terms, our formal relation risks remaining constrained by limiting norms that routinely prevent full resolution of needs. These terms apply anankelogy in the form of need-response.

 

Need-response

BE INFORMED that, from now on, all our interactions shall be guided by need-responsiveness—a higher standard than arbitrary human law. You acknowledge any previous agreement between us not prioritizing resolution of needs sits at a lower standard than need-responsiveness.

 

By continuing any formal relation with me, you acknowledge my need to operate under a higher standard of need-responsiveness. Any failure to respond to expressed needs warrants a reexamination of our professional rapport. You then risk being targeted as opposing resolution of needs, as being need-unresponsive. Once targeted and determined as unresponsive, our relation will likely be terminated—at whatever cost to all parties involved.

 

By continuing any formal relation with me, you acknowledge these ten need-response principles to maintain need-responsiveness, including each assertion made within. You are free to question any statement, and have me identify its essential basis for need-responsiveness. You are free to terminate our formal relation, with a risk of your professional reputation as widely viewed as unresponsive to affected needs. You are encouraged to see how each of these higher standards can benefit you.

 

1. Assessing your impact on needs

You are invited to see how the more you impact the relatively powerless like me, the less I can fully function to respect your needs. You are expected to realize how the more you ignore your impact on the relatively powerless like me, the more I am forced to fight, flee or freeze. You are expected to acknowledge my avoidance options and my adversarial options, and to recognize the potential threat these narrow options are to both you and to me. You are welcomed to replace such negative options with the more conciliatory option of power advocacy, where we mutually support resolving each other’s power-impacted needs. You are welcomed to work with us to improve your scientific legitimacy.

 

2. Assessing your democratic responsiveness

You are invited to see how the more you limit access to the law and the more you limit ballot options, the less the institutions of representative democracy, law enforcement and the judiciary holds valuable meaning for the most negatively impacted among the powerless. You are expected to realize legislated norms can only be as legitimate as their positive impact on our affected needs. You are welcomed to discover with us how to transition from impersonal law and from impersonal representative policymaking to a conciliatory approach accountably resolving each other’s publicly impacted needs. You are welcomed to work with us to improve your legal and democratic legitimacy.

 

3. Assessing your constitutional responsiveness

You are invited to see how the more you rely on arbitrary generalizations in your interactions with the powerless, the less likely you respect our constitutional rights. You are expected to realize how the less our rights are served, the more prone we are to vacillate between damaging avoidance options and damaging adversarial options. You are welcomed to discover with us the mutual benefits of a more conciliatory approach grounded in universal principles for resolving more needs. You are then welcomed to work with us to improve your constitutional legitimacy.

 

4. Assessing your inspirational responsiveness

You are invited to see the more you deviate from traditional sources of sacred inspiration, as demonstrated by rationalizing failures of institutions to self-justify your disrespect for our needs, the less our confidence in you and in your institutions. You are expected to realize the more we suffer failures of institutions to respect our impacted needs, the more we rely on scripture or other inspirational sources over you and your cherished institutions. You are welcomed to discover with us you how to improve the relevancy and inspirational legitimacy by improving your responsiveness to our impacted needs..

 

5. Assessing your wisdom to resolve needs

You are invited to see how the more you base your actions in self-interest, the less you can be responsive our vulnerably exploited needs. You are expected to realize the more your selfish actions leave us in pain, the more likely we rely on generalizations for relief from the mounting pain. You are welcomed to discover with us how to improve your wisdom legitimacy by grounding your actions in need-resolving principles applicable to all..

 

6. Assessing your love to resolve needs

You are invited to see how the more you prioritize the needs of others over your own, the more we can trust you and your institutions. You are expected to realize the more you prioritize your own needs over our impacted needs, the less legitimate you or your institutions impact us. You are welcomed to discover with us how we can prioritize each other’s needs to competitively earn the love legitimacy to rightly impact another’s needs.

 

7. Assessing your accountability

You are invited to see how the more you pressure us to serve your interest at the cost of sacrificing to you our own interests, the more your coercive power detracts from legitimacy to affect our needs. You are expected to realize power not kept accountable to its impacts becomes complicit in our increasing rates of anxiety, depression, addictive coping mechanisms, suicide ideation and other maladies fragmenting our communities and disintegrating the nation as a whole. You are welcomed to discover with us how to raise your legitimacy with an accountability standard linking your power to how well you wield it publicly.

 

8. Assessing your support

You are invited to see how the more you support our needs, the more we can support your needs. You are expected to realize the less you support the needs your power impacts, the less we can support your personal or institutional needs. You are expected to realize the more your past or present actions traumatize us, the much more support we need to restore to optimal functioning. You are welcomed to discover with us the steps necessary to establish a sufficient supportive standard to improve your legitimacy to remain involved in our power-traumatized lives.

 

9. Assessing your responsiveness

You are invited to see how the more responsive you are to our publicly vulnerable needs, the more responsive we can be to the requirements of the law and to optimally respect what you expect of me. You are expected to realize your failure to be responsive to the needs we express you impact, the less legitimate you or any authority to enforce norms benefiting you at my expense. You are welcomed to discover with us how to raise your responsive standard with a conciliatory process can nurture mutual responsiveness to each other’s affected needs.

 

10. Your impact impact validity

You are invited to see how the more you impact us negatively without responsive correction, the less validity you possess to remain involved in our lives. You are expected to realize the more your power coerces us into giving you more than we can honestly afford, you become complicit in structural exaction that coerces us into transfer more value than we would sacrifice if you did not pressure us from a position of power. You are welcomed to discover with us how you routinely extract more from us than we can sustain giving, and then discover how you can restore legitimacy with an impact standard that gives you opportunity to compensate for any hidden costs you legally or illegally exacted from us in your exercise of power.

 

Progressive terms

After these terms form the foundation for our relating on a higher standard, another set of need-responsive standards is to build upon these. They do not replace these standards, but will add depth to this new orientation to resolving all power relations impacted needs.

 

Adjustments to these terms

As needed, these terms may change to fit evolving situations. Being need-responsive requires vigilant understanding of each other’s impacted needs. These terms are provided as only one of many tools to ensure we help each other resolve needs.

 
solving problems by resolving needs
Inviting donations
  • VR Facebook page
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • YouTube Social  Icon
  • LinkedIn Social Icon

Enter your own amount.