michel on bonding capacity
michel bauwens on bonding capacity (aka: missing piece #2 – attachment {glossary})
via tweet [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/2027321880072638476?s=20]:
Brilliant commentary by David Ronfeldt on my substack article, introducing the concept of ‘Valence’, or ‘bonding capacity’:
“I take it then that you’ve not written a newer analysis of Mode D that I’ve missed.
For my purposes, “yearning to return” is more evocative and apt than “transcend” or “restoration of mode of exchange A in a higher dimension.” “Yearning” speaks to Karatani’s own admission that “Strictly speaking, D is not one of the modes of exchange. It is a drive that seeks to negate and sublate ‘exchange’ (whether of mode A, B, or C). It appears in the form of an ideational/religious power.” (h/t Dave McLeod for quoting)
I now know better why, for I’ve been studying up on the hard-science concept of “valence” — the combining power of an element, its capacity to dock and bond with another. Great concept that has made its way into psychology and linguistics, but not yet into theorizing about societal evolution. It calls for attention to bonding, the need and necessity for bonding. It seems deeper than modes for organizing (TIMN), relating (P2P), and/or exchanging (Karatani).
In light of this concept, each of TIMN’s four forms of organization, P2P’s four relational modalities, and Karatani’s four modes of exchange can be seen anew as different ways of bonding (and of preventing bonding). Thus the purpose of a “gift economy” is not so much to establish exchange relations as to create bonds. Same goes for TIMN’s Tribes, P2P’s (Fiske’s) communal solidarity, and Karatani’s Mode A. It makes sense to see them as bonding systems, as much if not more than as exchange systems. It may also make sense to analyze bloated states-markets axes as being held together by valence alignment and control systems. (And to view Trump’s defining tactic toward nearly everything as valence manipulation.)
this would all be great if still not talking all the forms of m\a\p
This concept of valency as the capacity to dock and bond, to access and connect, leads to better ways to define differences between TIMN’s Tribes and Networks forms, as well as Karatani’s Modes A and D. One key difference is that the earlier Tribes (A) form is mainly about people’s capacities for in-group bonding (not exchanging, but bonding through a common identity), whereas the later form (my +N, his D) seems mainly about people’s capacities for out-group bonding (again, not exchanging but bonding, this time around increasingly planetary and spiritual identies).
even deeper than id.. ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)
People yearn to bond before they yearn to exchange. For people are born to bond. All life is born to bond. All “major evolutionary transitions” (METs) are about ways to bond. Bonding is a sine qua non of alll evolution, all life. Or so I’m sensing from learning about valence.
rather.. if legit bonded.. if no missing pieces.. exchange ness would be/become irrelevant s
Seems kinda obvious. But I haven’t found any writings by established social theorists who recognize the significance of valence — bonding capability — for societal evolvability.”
ie: gabor maté – attachment & authenticity – myth of normal – specifically maté 2 basic needs
these are the 2 needs to org around if we want to see legit free people.. if we want to see the dance of an undisturbed ecosystem
and we have the means to facil that seeming chaos ie: ai as augmenting interconnectedness; tech as it could be via nonjudgmental expo labeling
https://4thgenerationcivilization.substack.com/p/what-i-told-the-chinese-grassroots/c
i think it’s supposed to be: https://4thgenerationcivilization.substack.com/p/what-i-told-the-chinese-grassroots
and from here this section fits with the above:
. Web3 as “Mode D” Coordination (with Pablo)
Deep dive into Kojin Karatani’s coordination modes; Bauwens and NuNet’s Pablo analyze Web3 as associative “Mode D” for mutual aid.
NuNet 🌐@nunet_global
Michel Bauwens on the Eastern Trail of the Peer-to-Peer Revolution. In this conversation, Michel and Pablo explore web3 as an example of the “Mode D” form of human coordination, as described by K. Karatani. Why do we need such coordination? What is at stake? Listen (14 min video)
notes from 14 min video embed:
mode a: commoning and gifting mode b: protection in return for taxes c: market d: yearn to return to a
3 min – so mode d is a an attempt to return to mode a (commoning and gifting) at a higher level of complexity
didn’t listen to rest
________
_______
______
_______
_______
________
be you. 