Beyond Lack and Satisfaction: A Generative Resonance Theory of Desire ー From Spinoza, Psychoanalysis, and Endogenous Preferences to Human Becoming in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Year: 2026
Type: preprint
Abstract: Short Description This paper develops a Generative Resonance Theory of desire, arguing that desire is not fundamentally a fixed internal lack directed toward an external object, but a dynamic orientation emerging through relations among potentiality, body, others, institutions, culture, and environment. It reframes deficiency desire, consumption, boredom, preference formation, and AI personalization through the model \[ \Phi\rightarrow R\rightarrow D\rightarrow S_D, \] and proposes reopenability—\(S\rightarrow\Phi'\)—as the central condition for preserving human generativity in the age of artificial intelligence. Extended Description Modern theories of desire have frequently assumed, explicitly or implicitly, that individuals possess needs, preferences, or lacks that motivate them to seek external objects capable of providing satisfaction. This paper reconstructs the intellectual history of that assumption and develops an alternative framework through Generative Resonance Theory (GRT). Part I traces major transformations in the theory of desire from Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Freud, Lacan, and Girard through Maslow, Self-Determination Theory, flow theory, behavioral decision research, and endogenous preference economics. Across these traditions, desire gradually ceases to appear as a fully autonomous and transparent possession of an isolated subject. It becomes increasingly understood as embodied, unconscious, symbolic, mimetic, socially conditioned, institutionally shaped, and contextually constructed. Part II develops the positive theoretical model of GRT. Desire is represented as emerging through: \[ \Phi\rightarrow R\rightarrow D\rightarrow S_D. \] The consciously experienced desired object \(S_D\) is treated as a crystallization of a broader generative-relational process rather than as the necessary origin of desire itself. This permits deficiency-oriented desire to be reinterpreted as one possible crystallized mode of a broader generative process rather than as the universal structure of human motivation. The framework further explains why individuals may consciously seek visible structures—wealth, status, brands, credentials, or identities—while implicitly seeking the relational histories, recognition, freedom, belonging, or participation represented by them. It distinguishes acquisition from participation and co-generation, proposes a self–other asymmetry in the interpretation of visible structures, and reconceptualizes boredom as a possible signal that established structures no longer reopen into meaningful future possibility. Part III extends the theory to contemporary digital society and artificial intelligence. Recommender systems and generative AI increasingly participate in the relational environment through which desire itself is formed. The paper introduces the concept of desire Hyper-S to describe recursive optimization of crystallized preferences at the expense of future generative openness. It distinguishes preference optimization from generative alignment, arguing that AI should not merely satisfy current preferences but preserve the human capacity to generate preferences, identities, relations, and goals that cannot be fully predicted from past behavior. Part IV synthesizes the implications of the theory. It introduces reopenability as a central criterion for distinguishing stable structure from pathological closure and proposes the normative principle: \[ \frac{d(\Phi R)}{dt}\geq0. \] The paper concludes that desire should be understood not fundamentally as movement toward possession, but as participation in becoming. Highlights Reconstructs major theories of desire from Spinoza to endogenous preferences within a single comparative framework. Distinguishes the object of desire from the generative origin of desire. Proposes the model: \[ \boxed{ \Phi\rightarrow R\rightarrow D\rightarrow S_D } \] for desire formation. Reinterprets deficiency-oriented desire as a possible crystallized mode of a broader generative process. Introduces the distinction: \[ \boxed{ D\neq S_D } \] to separate emerging motivational direction from its consciously identified object. Explains why visible structures such as status goods, credentials, and identities can become proxies for deeper relational and generative aspirations. Proposes a testable self–other asymmetry between prospective self-construction and retrospective interpretation of others. Reinterprets boredom as a possible signal of generative closure rather than merely low stimulation or hedonic adaptation. Distinguishes stimulus novelty from generative novelty. Defines reopenability as: \[ \boxed{ S\rightarrow\Phi' } \] the capacity of stable structures to generate further possibility. Introduces Hyper-S of desire as recursive optimization of crystallized preferences at the expense of generative openness. Reframes AI alignment from present-preference satisfaction toward generative alignment. Proposes an empirical research program involving preference formation, personalization, boredom, co-generation, productive friction, and long-term human agency. Introduces the normative criterion: \[ \boxed{ \frac{d(\Phi R)}{dt}\geq0. } \] Summary by Part Part I — Where Does Desire Come From? Revisiting the Intellectual History of Desire Part I reconstructs the history of desire theory through a common question: where does desire originate? Spinoza relocates desire from deficiency to the striving of existence itself. Schopenhauer reveals the instability of satisfaction and the recurrence of boredom and renewed wanting. Freud demonstrates that conscious desire does not exhaust the motivational process. Lacan places language, lack, and the Other at the center of desire. Girard shows that desire is frequently mimetic and socially mediated. Maslow then broadens motivational theory beyond deficiency toward growth and self-transcendence. Self-Determination Theory demonstrates that motivation depends on autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Flow theory reveals forms of motivation in which participation itself becomes intrinsically rewarding. Behavioral decision research shows that preferences can be constructed in context, while endogenous-preference theory demonstrates that institutions and markets can influence the very preferences they appear merely to satisfy. The historical trajectory is summarized as: \[ \boxed{ \text{Desire as possession} \rightarrow \text{Desire as process} \rightarrow \text{Desire as relational formation}. } \] Part I establishes the conceptual space within which a generative theory of desire becomes possible. Part II — A New Form of Desire: Generative Resonance Theory From the Acquisition of Desired States to Participation in Becoming Part II introduces the core GRT model: \[ \boxed{ \Phi\rightarrow R\rightarrow D\rightarrow S_D. } \] It argues that the consciously identified object of desire is a temporary crystallization rather than necessarily the causal origin of motivation. The distinction: \[ \boxed{ D\neq S_D } \] allows deficiency motivation to be reconceptualized as one possible closure-oriented expression of a broader generative process. The paper then distinguishes two modes: Closure mode \[ Lack \rightarrow Acquisition \rightarrow Satisfaction \rightarrow Saturation/Boredom. \] Generative mode \[ \Phi \rightarrow R \rightarrow S \rightarrow \Phi'. \] The section further examines symbolic consumption and argues that people may desire visible S while implicitly seeking the history, recognition, belonging, freedom, or relational possibilities represented by that S. It introduces the proposed self–other asymmetry: \[ \text{Self}: S\rightarrow E^* \] versus \[ \text{Other}: \Phi R_{\text{history}}\rightarrow S\rightarrow Meaning. \] Part II culminates in a new theory of boredom: boredom can occur when a structure continues to repeat without opening consequential new possibilities. Thus: \[ \boxed{ Boredom \approx \text{signal of weakened }S\rightarrow\Phi'. } \] Part III — Desire and the Future in Contemporary Society and the Age of AI From Preference Optimization to the Reopening of Human Generativity Part III places desire formation within contemporary digital society. Markets, platforms, social media, recommendation systems, and generative AI increasingly participate in \(R\), the relational environment through which desire is generated. The classical technological model is: \[ D_{\text{given}} \rightarrow AI_{\text{prediction}} \rightarrow S_{\text{satisfaction}}. \] The paper replaces it with a recursive model: \[ \boxed{ D_t \rightarrow Behavior_t \rightarrow AI_t \rightarrow R_{t+1} \rightarrow D_{t+1}. } \] Because recommendation affects what users encounter, and encounter affects subsequent preference formation, successful prediction may become indistinguishable from partial preference production. The paper defines desire Hyper-S as: \[ \boxed{ \text{recursive optimization of crystallized desire at the expense of generative openness}. } \] The characteristic risk is: \[ \boxed{ Prediction\ Accuracy\uparrow \qquad Generative\ Openness\downarrow. } \] The alternative is generative AI, which reduces dead friction while preserving meaningful exploration, relational difference, and reopenability. The paper therefore distinguishes: \[ \text{Optimizer} \] from: \[ \text{Explorer}. \] The central design principle becomes: Be useful without making the user's future reducible to the user's past. Part IV — Discussion and Conclusion From Desire as Lack to Desire as Participation in Becoming Part IV integrates the theoretical, empirical, ethical, and technological implications of the framework. It argues that GRT should not be understood as a denial of deficiency, satisfaction, structure, or stable preferences. Rather, its core distinction is between structure that remains generative and structure that closes the conditions of further becoming. The ce
Author: Ohumi, Kazunori
Language: English
Subfield: Clinical Psychology
Field: Psychology
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W7220448515