When to Rearrange Resource Focus for Social Equalizing?

[The Voice of Time]

In the Philosophy of Needs that I'm working on, there's a principle that says given any declaration of a human-managed Tren (a collection and boundary of need objects that there's a determined imperative to preserve andor preserve in a particular fashion), all need-objects that are also members of the Tren's focus group (usually members of the Tren that are communicating and recognizing each other's importance) are equally focused when at an equal degree of despair.

The reason for this is to maintain the security of all focus group members of a Tren (usually some parts of humans (the parts deemed to matter the most for each individual in the consensus of those communicating, this may include all relevant pieces of humans), since there are need objects that are part of the Tren but not part of the humans in it). The security of any focus group member depends on a predictability that they will be preserved as need-objects and not be destroyed or changed significantly, and following this that the resources are arranged such as to secure this. If humans cannot trust this absolute rule, then they cannot feel fully secure from the management of the Tren and the management system looses its legitimacy.

Despair, is therefore, the sum of all gains and losses throughout each movements in need-space at an n'th length. Gains are when the value of conditions (the sum of support-mechanisms that keep the need-object the way it is) gain additional elements that satisfy the requirements for preserving the need-object, also called conditions (though not to be confused with increasing the number of requirements, instead an increase in conditions is increasing the number of sources to satisfaction of the already defined requirements). Conversely, a loss is when such a condition is removed. If the removed condition was an excess condition, meaning something ready to take up the place of any condition already doing the job of keeping it up, then the need-object doesn't actually change what it is, it doesn't stop being what it is, but the possibility that it might undergo a non-excess condition loss, where the need-object will be forced to change increases (forced to change because the requirements are no longer satisfied).

If the n'th length is time, you get a ratio of sum of (current value + gains - losses) at first time + any additional times (which will have their own values) divided on time. Or (sum(c+g-l)_1+sum(c+g-l)_2+sum(c+g-l)_3... + sum(c+g-l)_n'th) t. The underscore means instance in sequence, so c in sum(c+g-l)_1 has a different value than c in sum(c+g-l)_2. The opposite of desperation is stabilization, and desperation is always a negative value, whereas stabilization has always a positive value. During the process, like time for instance (time is a process, for instance 1 second or 1 hour), you will have an x-amount of movements, and that is the n'th length. Each movement is a summation of c+g+l of some particular value for that need-object in that moment, it means the conditional value it has versus what it will have in the next instance, that is, the number of sub-identity changes, changes in requirements (a requirement is also called a function and is here a positive thing, we want to keep functions, requirements) and changes in the excess supply of conditions.

So for the sequence of n'th length, every time you have a negative value from the summation, you have a unit of despair, whereas every time you have a positive value, you have a unit of stabilization. It is worth noting that you make gains based on where in the sequence you are, so the current value at sum(c+g-l)_2 is different from sum(c+g-l)_3, the identity is different.

So back from the math, when we talk about the arrangement of resource focuses for social equalizing, we are talking about which of the members of the focus group, have the lowest value at some n'th length. There's probably a way to calculate n'th length and how it should be standardized (though into a defined variable and not a constant) but that requires more math-solving than is wanted for this thread.

We want to check who has the greatest despair, or lowest stability. It is worth noting that despair is a more likely unit because people loose more than they gain, this is because adding a requirement is not a good thing in and of itself, its actually a neutral event, it doesn't matter unless it matters for the future (making satisfaction harder to come by for instance, but that's a totally different story), whereas loosing a requirement is alfa and omega what makes a difference. So you only add excess requirements, where you loose both excess conditions and primary conditions (the condition that is doing support, or one could say, the one that's left after all excess ones have been removed. Doesn't have to be a particular one). And excess conditions can be vanishingly small.

By focusing on the one that has the greatest despair, you are pre-emptively ensuring each member that they continue to persist in their identity. That's the end of this story x)

Please tell me what you think, or whether you think I'm wrong, or if you have something you'd like to change about it!