Two Deceptions About Objects of Needs

[The Voice of Time]

So for those, likely everyone, who doesn't know exactly what I mean by an "object of need", I'll skip my usual more complex discussion and just be very literal and say that it's "anything that you can talk about as having needs", which is practically anything (though not always as obvious, as say, human beings and animals).

So, onto the deceptions:

1) If you presume there is no change just because you don't see it from your perspective (your limit of knowledge about "what is there"), you would in turn presume the object is satisfied (that is no longer requires change) following my previous theories about the relationship between the fate of the universe and individual causal need-based reality. However, seeing from any one perspective will only make you see changes obvious to that perspective, and so any non-obvious changes will not be noted, and you would presume the object of need to be satisfied when it may not be so. Therefore, any object of need is constantly a struggle to understand more in order to fight the deception of limited perspective.

2) You can presume something satisfied to be identical with the core of human need identity, when it is in truth exterior to it, in such a way you may treat the wrong object. The problem is not merely though that you make mistakes, but that the core of human need identity is not an obvious object of need, and therefore, yet again, there is always a constant struggle to understand more in order to fight the deception of surface versus content.

Note: the core of human need identity lays in a will to live produced by preservative deflections, or said in another way; the core lays in having a set of mechanisms whose aim (that which they point at) is to preserve some object (so they'd point towards threats) by showing deflective ability. It becomes a sophisticated notion when taken to language, a sense of self and into a socialized natural state of being.

[Impenitent]

it's better to burn out, than fade away...

-Imp

[duszek]

I heard on the radio today that depressed men are often aggressive.

What would be the need and its object in such a case ?

A says something mean and unkind to B.
A needs a brief feeling of victory in order to quench his feeling of hopelessness ?

[The Voice of Time]

Answering duszek.

1) "depressed" and "aggressive" are more metaphysical, or at least very vague terms, and not natural objects. It's hard to justify talking about needs in such a case because it's unlikely to have anything to do with truth and more with our habits of talking in associative (terms that has a wide variety of instances in the real world and that are continuously subject to re-interpretation) and not concrete (direct unique situation references) language. This is not the same as that it's not possible, it's just advisable to use a more concrete language. In that specific case the object of need would be the specific collective mass of depressed men (not women?) acting aggressive, that would be the object of need. The need is not separate from the object, as your question presumes, and the way it is presented there seems to be a presumption that "aggressive" is a necessary action in order to tackle with a need, but this is viewing it wrong, because that would be a presumption of virtue, or in other words: a priori knowledge. While the study of objects of need studies that which already is and then calculates the values of the situation and figures out the ability-graph for which displays what kind of changes the situations can undergo and in turn what kind of changes are the most beneficial. I have no comment as to what may be the situation with aggressive depressives, but I would assume that in the long term it would be the most beneficial to them to get rid of their aggressive identity as it's normally a very destructive feature of personality.

2) No comment.