Saturday, July 31, 2010

Need, Want and The Way You Feel: An Alternative Perspective

First of all, reader be ware.  This is a "Red Pill" article.  It is part of an alternative way of thinking and, if not carefully read, can be misunderstood to be an excuse to do what, more experienced people, would say is the wrong thing to do.  This is no such excuse.  Reader discretion is advised.


Let me say this.  I think Wants and Needs are like apples and oranges, in that they don't directly compare to each other.  So it's not as easy to say, that Needs are more important than Wants, as one might think.  I'll even take it a step further and say this.  Without Need, Want may never be achieved.  But without Want, there is no such thing as Need.  However, neither Need nor Want exist without the threat of some degree of pain.  It is pain (i.e. the stresses of life) that animates us.  And the greater the stress, the more animated we get in our efforts to avoid, reduce or eliminate that stress.  I think happiness itself is basically a result of successful pain/stress/stimuli management.

Think about it.  You are born bathed in a sea of stimuli that never ever lets up.  Every picosecond of every day, even if you are alone, you can bet that your nervous system is buzzing with information being sent to your brain for assimilation.  Especially in today's time, with electricity surging through wires and appliances all around us, just sound, alone, guarantees that there is not a moment of complete silence to be had anywhere unless the room is specifically designed for it.  Even then, there is other nervous system activity like air temperature, light intensity, or just all the different biological functions and chemical reactions that happen inside the body itself.  There is virtually no break in the flow of stimuli traveling to your brain through your nervous system.

It's not that all stimuli is so painful (the degree to which you would call it pain is a matter of your own pain threshold); it's that, on some level of our being, we are working to insure that the pain is minimized and that is stays that way.  This is where Need, Want and The way you feel, comes into play.  They are tools that you use to help balance your imbalances which come from stimuli that originate from your environment.

There appears to be a, sort of, system or order of operations to this balancing process.  First there is the stimuli, itself, creating an imbalance within you.  Then your body's automatic functions kick in.  Before you even feel anything, your body is hard at work, fighting to regulate and/or adapt to any form of pain or undesirable stimuli it encounters.  If your body starts to loose the fight then it, increasingly, loads your nervous system with sensory data, coming from what ever part or parts of it that are stressed.  This data comes together in your mind and shapes "HOW YOU FEEL."  Your feelings function as a, sort of, barometer for your state of being and when your state of being is undesirable, you start to "WANT", in effort to improve it, and bring it back to a desirable state.

This is the function of "Want".  Your Wants are like goals that are always aimed at improving your state of being to a desirable state.  The specifics of your Wants (the specific goals) are intended to address the specific Feelings that developed from the stresses that your automatic bodily functions had trouble handling.

So.  Your Wants are goals that you set, through trial and error, based on how you Feel, that are aimed at improving your state of being to a desirable state by helping you manage the pain that comes from the imbalances that are created, within you, by undesirable stimuli that originate from your environment.

The point here is that your Wants are goals.  So what are your Needs?  The short answer is that your Needs are goals too, but they are of a different type.  The support for this is that there is a pretty consistent difference between, how we use the word Want, as apposed to, how we use the word Need.  It has to do with one other word.  "Why".  One can say "I want" all day long, without having to answer the question, of Why, and the Want is still considered valid.  But if the person says "I Need," the question, Why, must have an answer or the person will have difficulty showing that the need is valid.

One significant thing about this attribute of Need is that it negates Need from being used as the ultimate reason for anything.  You can say "you Need" and then answer the question, Why, with another Need and then answer the question, Why, for that Need with even another Need and the string of Needs will go on indefinitely until you answer the question, Why, with something that is not yet another Need.

This makes a case for the relationship between Need and Want in a person's life.  Both Need and Want function as goals, but Need does not function as a final goal.  It is what we Want, that is the ultimate conscious or subconscious reason for why we animate.  But achieving what we want is not always as easy as just taking action.  It is by way of the, more restrictive, yet ordered and logically based, Need, that we are able to map out more complex paths to our Wants.

Basically our Wants are like goals and our Needs are like sub-goals or checkpoints to help us get to what we want.  This is why it is so important for us to know what we Want.  All the reasons that we animate are a result of it and we can't properly assess our Needs unless we know it.

Every action that you take or determine that you Need to take, is ultimately driven by something you Want.  And everything you want is aimed at bringing your state of being to a desirable state.  Whether it's robbery, theft, playing the lottery, jumping out of the way of an on coming vehicle, getting hit by that vehicle while tossing a child out of it's path, working a job, volunteerism, acts of charity or even servitude to a higher power, when you decide or intend to take action, what ever that action may be, you are trying to maintain or improve your state of being or prevent or avoid an undesirable state of being for now and/or for the future, FOR YOURSELF.  No matter how many people you help or how bad you are willing to let yourself get hurt trying to help them, you are still trying to end up in a desirable state of being.  Again it is what animates you and is ultimately why you take any action at all.  The concept of selfishness is better thought of as over-selfishness.  And it is, likely, the result of the less experienced person's efforts toward a desirable state of being BUT, most likely, achieving a less desirable state of being for lack of awareness of the negative effects of his or her own actions or inactions on the state of being of others.

This alternative viewpoint of Need and Want does not try the change the mechanics of either word.  It is an attempt at opening a topic of discussion aimed at addressing how well we understand ourselves and each other when we use these words.

If any of what I have written so far makes since, you might see my concern.  I can sum it up in one word.  Manipulation.

I am concerned that people are so busy plugging away at their Needs and giving such little thought to what it is that they Want that drives those Needs, that they, unwittingly, make it easier for themselves to work the Needs of others who may over-selfishly serve their own Wants to the detriment of those who are (apparently, unwittingly) working for them.  The better we are able to understand what animates us (which is to understand how we work), the more likely that we can create an environment that leaves a person, little option than to support Needs that minimize abuse to others as much as possible.

Please share you thoughts.

Thank you,

B9

9 comments:

  1. Comment by stp52x copied from this thread posted in Zeitgeist forum.

    You have seriously over-complicated this issue of needs and wants. One wants those things that make one happy. Needs are desires as well, but a set of desires society has told us are of greater significance than common desires. We need water, we want hot water. We need a long-distance mode of transportation, we want a private jet. But if one recognizes that one does those things which make one happy, then the concept of need becomes unnecessary. For obviously one would do first those actions that one "needs" in order to maintain happiness. We need a long-distance mode of transportation to make us happy, we want a private jet because that would be more comfortable, faster and thus it would make us even happier. Of course we are not going to acquire a private jet, thus commercial aircraft transport is sufficient and we are content with that option.

    I am surprised that you have missed this motivating factor entirely. What we want is usually a more elaborate variation of what we need. But the root motive of our wants and needs is the objective to realize happiness.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Response to stp52x copied from this thread posted in Zeitgeist forum.

    stp52x wrote:
    You have seriously over-complicated this issue of needs and wants.

    response:
    The way I wrote this is about the equivalent of presenting a web page in HTML code. It was about the details. I wanted to get as close to the "1's and 0's" of want and need as possible. What I wrote was very deliberate and carefully written as best as I could understand and as close to science as I could write it without being a scientist.



    stp52x wrote:
    One wants those things that make one happy.

    response:
    I Agree



    stp52x wrote:
    Needs are desires as well, but a set of desires society has told us are of greater significance than common desires.

    response:
    First, I disagree that Needs are desires. Needs are requirements. A condition is a Need if (and only if) another condition requires it.
    All needs are significantly important to what requires them, but the significance of a need is separate from it's function. The significance of a need changes from one perspective to the next but the function stays the same.

    Secondly, the function of a nation, that is of the people, by the people and for the people, is to help the people, ultimately, get what they want by helping them see what they have to do, for the nation, in order to help make it possible for what they want, to come to fruition. The better able we are to match the people's abilities to the nation's needs (which result from the needs and wants of the people), the more likely that the people can live happy lives.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Response to stp52x copied from this thread posted in Zeitgeist forum.

    stp52x wrote:
    We need water, we want hot water. We need a long-distance mode of transportation, we want a private jet. But if one recognizes that one does those things which make one happy, then the concept of need becomes unnecessary. For obviously one would do first those actions that one "needs" in order to maintain happiness. We need a long-distance mode of transportation to make us happy, we want a private jet because that would be more comfortable, faster and thus it would make us even happier. Of course we are not going to acquire a private jet, thus commercial aircraft transport is sufficient and we are content with that option.

    response:
    I see the specific comparisons that you made here as reasonable, but not as a clear representation of the function of need as it compares to want. For example, one's "need" for long-distance transportation, even as it compares to having a private jet, is still not a need if he or she doesn't know why s/he needs it. In which case, it starts to sound more like a want or desire. Your comparisons seem more like examples of, what one would prefer vs what one would settle for. A need requires more information than just to state that it is a need even if that information is assumed, as in the case of your statement that one "needs" water. The assumption (and a very reasonable one) is that the person wants to live and needs the water for sustenance. But what if you're giving him water to drink and bathe with and he's using it to water his 1/2 acre of grass in a time of water shortage. Sure, he wants a beautiful lawn and needs water to make it happen but the significance of his need is a matter of perspective and, in this case, not likely shared with the rest of his community.

    It would seem like i'm splitting hairs here but when you're not getting the information you need in order to make the best decisions, you have to ask detailed questions, clearly identify missing information and be well aware of the effects of anything assumed in error, especially if it's to be automated for a whole society of people.



    stp52x wrote:
    I am surprised that you have missed this motivating factor entirely. What we want is usually a more elaborate variation of what we need. But the root motive of our wants and needs is the objective to realize happiness.

    response:
    Actually, I understand completely. But I would still say that no matter how elaborate a person's wants are, he or she is OK if the other people do not experience a dis-proportionate amount of pain to pleasure as a result of those wants. Idealy, the person will have, more than, paid his or her dues to society for the privilege to indulge.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Comment by plan4freedom copied from this thread posted in Zeitgeist forum.

    Please try to summarize these philosophical ramblings, so that I may make a more meaningful response.

    It appears that you are concerned about some people focusing on the needs of others to the point that some others, having their needs already fulfilled, will exploit the opportunity to focus on their wants rather than reciprocating the fulfillment of the common needs that have already been provided.

    Or in other words, you are concerned that once all needs are fulfilled, people will focus solely on selfish needs, to the detriment of others. Correct?

    What do you mean by manipulation?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Response to plan4freedom copied from this thread posted in Zeitgeist forum.

    plan4freedom wrote:
    Please try to summarize these philosophical ramblings, so that I may make a more meaningful response.

    response:
    I didn't write that much just to see myself write. Nor did I want to just state my opinions without some effort in showing how I got there. I know my original post is pretty long but you are free to go through it and split out quotes like I'm doing in this response.



    plan4freedom wrote:
    It appears that you are concerned about some people focusing on the needs of others to the point that some others, having their needs already fulfilled, will exploit the opportunity to focus on their wants rather than reciprocating the fulfillment of the common needs that have already been provided.

    Or in other words, you are concerned that once all needs are fulfilled, people will focus solely on selfish needs, to the detriment of others. Correct?

    response:
    Not quite. I'm actually more concerned about people that leave themselves open to be taken advantage of by others, more so than the ones trying to take advantage of them. I think a society is stronger for improving the Knowledge and self-awareness of it's people than it is for focusing most of its resources on crime and punishment. I think there are subtle details about the relationship between needs and wants that disagree with the negative concept of selfishness as well as the idea that we can be self-less.

    Basically I think that in trying to be self-less, we are misleading ourselves about our nature and that if we sought, carefully, to understand and cultivate it, we would be less likely to polarize and hate each other so much.



    plan4freedom wrote:
    What do you mean by manipulation?

    response:
    The apparent ease at which we can be made to hate each other for lack of knowledge and understanding of ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Comment by BigOnBass0421 copied from this thread posted in Zeitgeist forum.

    bitman wrote:
    Basically I think that in trying to be self-less, we are misleading ourselves about our nature and that if we sought, carefully, to understand and cultivate it, we would be less likely to polarize and hate each other so much.

    Comment:
    I'm just curious if you believe in nature over nurture, or in simpler terms if you believe humans have a set disposition.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Response to BigOnBass0421 copied from this thread posted in Zeitgeist forum.

    BigOnBass0421 wrote:
    I'm just curious if you believe in nature over nurture, or in simpler terms if you believe humans have a set disposition.


    Response:
    Actually, I'm not sure that nature was the best choice of words in my previous statement. I was thinking more abstract and should probably have said that we would be misleading ourselves about "what makes us human". But about nature vs nurture, I have two perspectives that I think may appear contradictory but are not.

    First - If nature represents behavioral influences that come from genetic makeup and other basic traits that you are born with and nurture represents behavioral influences that come from the experiences of life, I would say that nurture encroaches upon nature, more and more, as the technological advances of society continue forward. I don't believe that humans have a natural disposition that is impossible to change with some form of nurture conditioning. Anything is possible when you don't know everything.

    Secondly - I think nature and nurture are both made up of a much more basic, actional/reactional form of energy or vibration that is the very fabric of our universe. If no more energy came into our universe, then the universe would continue to "cool" and balance itself until there is no more matter, energy or universe at all. I also think that if the vibration of our universal fabric could be tracked, then all action, especially at the level of human existence, would be predictable. It would be like being scientifically aware of fate.

    Just my two cents.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with what you are saying. I don't know how to better express that, other than telling you I don't have any questions. You explain your perspective very well. I hope my analogy isn't too far off base, but my mind (always trying to find a pattern and make associations) compares this very loosely to the difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge'. A person can 'believe' anything they want to believe about our reality, but can only 'know' what is 'known'... i.e.: I believe in a reality that is greater than our physical existence. Any knowledge toward that belief is speculation outside of personal experiences and the subjective experiences of others who share my beliefs. I become less... oh, ?knowledgeable? when I insist that my beliefs are true when I have no physical evidence to back it up. This comes into play quite often in discussions with my good friend who is a very philosophical atheist. Because I am agnostic, I allow for *possibilities* and *potentialities* whereas, my friend sees that if it isn't tangible, it isn't proven. This separation between 'belief' and 'knowledge', when 'knowledge' isn't applied subjectively, that allows for greater understanding of others.

    Hope I didn't go too far off track with my rambling. It is good, for me anyway, to share such a seemingly unique perspective with you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. f/34, you're talking about something that brings me to some other thoughts I have. I agree with you in that I believe there is more to know about reality than what we call our physical three dimensional existences but I'm going to split hairs a bit for the sake of consistency in the presentation of my thoughts on reality itself.

    The way I understand it, all things really are relative. Everything. And it all comes together through perspectives. Each of us has our own perspective on everything. And even more controversial than these last statements is that one cannot address anything from outside of his/her own perspective. It means that, theoretically, there is no such thing as an absolute reality that exists regardless of one’s perspective. The closest thing to an absolute reality is your reality. As long as you exist, it exists; as long as it exists, you exist. And anything that one calls absolute is just that, something that he/she called absolute. Whether you say something's absolute, or you believe in it or you know it to be the case, is all a matter of how certain you are about what you are saying. I can be just as wrong about something as I can be right about it, no matter how certain I am. And because I see right and wrong as just as relative as everything else, it would be more accurate for me to say that "I can end up concluding that I was just as wrong about something as I might conclude that I was right about it no matter how certain I am." This is how I can show that I'm speaking from my perspective when I talk about right and wrong. However, I'm not suggesting that we go to this depth of detail in our everyday conversations but I am suggesting that we become more aware of the assumptions we make in our interpretations of what people say to us and what we say to them. With respect to the difference between one's certainty when making a statement and whether or not that statement is accepted as true or right, I just want to say that as long as you don't know everything, new information always has the potential to change everything you do know. This is why I don't see any information, principal, etc. as absolute. I just keep in mind where I got it from.

    Proof, facts and all of that stuff is relative also. What one accepts as proof may not be accepted as proof by another. It's just an issue of personal preference. By the way I do take this stuff seriously. Proof, facts, knowledge, belief, right, wrong, it all matters very much to me. I'm just not seeking these things out in terms of what is the absolute case. That doesn't exist to me. I'm seeking the case where our perspectives align. Meaning where we agree. It's from where we agree that we can build common standards, morals, principals, laws, rules of thumb and the like.

    I also recognize the case where you have experiences that others don't have and so they cannot relate to you on that. I don't see much you can do about that but discuss those topics with those who can relate. Your level of knowledge is separate from that though. And I am also of the mind that everyone doesn't have to believe the same things. As a start, we just have to figure out how to successfully manage the pain in our lives, ideally while minimizing the pain we cause others as well.

    I want to keep talking but I gotta get some sleep. Thanks for the comment. I'm very interested in finding people I can talk about this kind of stuff with.

    B9

    ReplyDelete