Evolution of needs
While each gene has only one need, that of reproduction, an organism has a great number and variety of needs: at least one for each of its organs, indeed, for each of its cells. Indeed, evolution from the eukaryotic cell to complex organisms has resulted in a multiplication of needs in each new species. In other words, the more complex an organism is, the more numerous and diverse are its needs.
Most of an organism’s needs are met automatically and unconsciously by homeostatic processes. For example, the maintenance of a certain amount of blood sugar in the blood is regulated automatically by the behavior of the pancreas. Other needs may be met through more complex logics of behavior that may require the intervention of multiple organs.
We can assume that the mind is a device that serves to satisfy the needs of its host organism (or organ) through the execution of cybernetic logic. Consequently, we can assume that every homeostatic process is governed by a mind, however simple, and that every cell possesses at least one, which operates autonomously and independently of the organism’s central one located (presumably) in the brain.
Man is almost certainly the most complex being that exists in nature and, as such, the one with the greatest amount and variety of needs (i.e., motivations in the broadest sense). We can therefore say that man is the most needy animal. But what makes human life much more problematic than that of other animals is the conflicting nature of his needs, in the sense that the satisfaction of one of them often results in the frustration of certain others.
Consider in this regard the classes of human needs defined in the previous chapter. The most important needs are the biological ones since the survival of the individual and the preservation of his species depend directly on them. Immediately after, in order of importance, there are, in my opinion, cooperation needs. In fact, man is physically so weak and so poorly equipped compared to other animals that he has an absolute need for the cooperation of others to survive. No human can, in fact, survive without exchanging goods and/or services with other humans, that is, without the support of others, especially during the period before sexual maturity, which is the longest period of any other animal species.
The rearing and protection of offspring, the organization of hunting and agricultural activities, defense against dangerous animals, the exchange of goods, etc., make it essential to be part of at least one community of individuals bound together by commitments of cooperation and mutual aid and succor, as well as the sharing of knowledge and material resources.
Antithesis between cooperation needs and freedom needs
With reference to the classes of needs described in the chapter Needs, Desires, Motivations, after biological needs and cooperation needs, in order of importance there are, in my opinion, freedom needs.
The trouble is that being part of a community, i.e., interacting with other people, requires adherence to certain rules in terms of obligations and prohibitions, which entails a limitation of the freedom of the interactors. Consequently, it can be said that the needs for cooperartionand the needs for freedom are antithetical. In other words, the more integrated one is in a community, the less free one is, and, conversely, the more free one is, the less integrated one is in a community. This is true (from a logical point of view) even in the case where the limitation of freedom is not perceived as such or is unwelcome.
Human interactions involve the assumption of temporary or permanent complementary roles, such as that of provider and that of service user.
Obviously, the roles of supplier and that of user can be overlapping and reversible, in the sense that a person A may be supplier with respect to a person B and user with respect to a person C; or between two persons A and B, at a certain time A may assume the role of supplier and B that of user, and at a later time the roles may be reversed. Other cases are those of barter and business transactions.
Obviously, the roles of supplier and user between two people can be assumed peacefully or through violence (exercised or threatened). Thus, there is always a risk in interactions between two people that one will exercise violence toward the other, which may result in a response of submission or defensive violence.
The relationship of supply-fruition, or domination-submission, can be established (peacefully or violently) not only between two people, but also between two communities. If the complementary roles are not accepted (willingly or unwillingly) by the parties involved, there are two possible outcomes: separation (or estrangement) of the parties, or a war. Since the supplier-user relationship serves to satisfy needs of the user, we can say that wars arise from conflicts between the needs of one party and those of the other, where solutions for the satisfaction of both cannot be found.
Functions of the needs for power, knowledge and beauty
Right after the needs for freedom, in order of importance, in my opinion, are the needs for power.
These serve, on the one hand, to defend oneself against violence from others (both within and outside the communities to which one belongs) and, on the other hand, to have greater bargaining power in the negotiation of supplier-user relationships and in the choice of partners.
More generally, the power an individual needs serves to facilitate the satisfaction of all other needs (i.e., biological, community, knowledge, and beauty needs).
Right after power needs, in order of importance, in my opinion, are knowledge needs.
These serve to facilitate primarily the satisfaction of power needs, but also that of all other needs, either directly or through the power gained through knowledge. Through knowledge, in fact, the individual knows how to move, knows how to win in competition, knows where to find or how to produce the resources (material, informational and human) he needs, etc.
In the last place in order of importance in the classes of needs, in my opinion, are to be placed the needs for beauty. Beauty, in fact, is not essential for survival, nor for social integration, yet it constitutes a competitive factor in sexual reproduction (since all things being equal, an individual prefers to mate with the most attractive partner), and a factor of orientation and selection in the search for the satisfaction of all other needs. Indeed, all things being equal, an individual prefers the “most beautiful” option, and beauty is often linked to health, efficiency and harmony in an ecological sense. In other words, beauty often coincides with goodness in the sense that good relationships are most often also beautiful. In this sense, the pursuit of beauty causes us to make the best choices in interactions with the natural and social environment.
External vs. internal conflicts, double constraints, origin of mental disorders
Conflicts between needs can be external or internal. External ones concern the incompatibility between one or more of an individual’s needs and those of others. For example, in a situation of resource scarcity, the satisfaction of one person might result in the frustration of another. Concepts such as selfishness and altruism, cooperation and competition, concern external conflict, where one is all the more selfish and all the more competitive the more he or she prioritizes the satisfaction of one’s own needs over those of others.
By internal conflict I mean the conflict (conscious or unconscious) between two antithetical needs present in an individual. For example, the conflict between the desire for adventure and the fear of its dangers, or the conflict between the desire to eat and the fear of gaining weight.
However, internal conflicts can affect other people, as is often the case.
For example, a subject strongly desires to date a person whom his or her partner does not like. Satisfying that desire could result in breaking the relationship with the partner, but the subject does not want to give up that relationship. Both options (giving up dating the desired person or giving up the relationship with the partner) are painful. If either option were significantly more painful, the subject would opt for the one that is less painful. But if the two options are equally very painful, the subject is in a stalemate and suffering situation that corresponds to the “double constraint” theorized by Gregory Bateson and the “cognitive imbalance” theorized by Fritz Heider.
The subject’s mind, in fact, wanting to avoid the pain that either choice would entail, decides (consciously or unconsciously) not to choose, becomes immobilized and ends up removing the desire toward both persons, or ends up developing two opposing personalities, one favorable to the first person, the other favorable to the second; incompatible personalities that alternate over time in guiding the person.
For Gregory Bateson, double constraint (understood as the perception of conflicting social pressures) is the main cause of schizophrenia. In the example given by Bateson, a mother scolds her child for not being affectionate enough toward her, but when the child approaches her, she rejects him. The child is thus torn between the need for intimacy with the mother, and the fear of being punished by her as unwelcome.
For Louis Anèpeta, the unresolved conflict between the need to belong and the need for individuation (in which one of the two needs is removed in the psychoanalytic sense) is the cause of almost all mental disorders. In his Structural Dialectical Theory, Anèpeta theorizes a structural, permanent conflict between the superego and what he calls theantithetical self, which represents what I have called needs for freedom. Both the superego and the antithetical self never allow themselves to be completely overwhelmed and, when cornered, exert pressure on the conscious self causing mental disorders such as depression, panic attacks, psychosomatic symptoms or severe psychopathy.
Thus, we can assume that nature, besides endowing us with needs to ensure our survival, has also endowed us with mechanisms such as pain and mental disorders (psychic and psychosomatic) that constitute unconscious protests, defenses or retaliation against the frustration and inhibition of needs caused by external social pressures or by the subject himself.
In conclusion, I believe that the presence of a mental disorder or existential suffering is almost always a symptom of some conflict between needs, frustration of a need or an attempt to inhibit or remove it. I also believe that this idea should form the backbone of any psychotherapy and any quest to improve one’s mental and physical well-being.
Next chapter: feelings and emotions, pleasure and pain.