will on money ness
_______
via tweet [https://x.com/wor/status/1990286585477112162?s=20]:
I think part of what’s going on here is our obsession with “Money” as if it were some basic feature of the universe, like gravity. It’s become such an all-encompassing category that we stop seeing the very specific tradition it comes from – right down to its name and institutional lineage.
money\ness et al
We use money as a kind of bludgeon-term: everything becomes “money,” or “proto-money,” or “alternative money,” and then we wrap entire past and present systems inside that frame. We even build whole fields like Monetary Theory as if there were one coherent, timeless object called “Money” that all these different practices are just versions of.
For me, it’s more honest and more useful to pull this apart:
for me.. very useful to let go of it.. ie: try/code money (any form of measuring/accounting/people telling other people what to do) as the planned obsolescence.. where legit needs are met w/o money.. till people forget about measuring..ie: sabbatical ish transition
There is a very clear Moneta → “money” tradition: state-denominated units, tax-backed obligations, public coinage, central banking, etc.
There are also many other value and commitment systems rations, temple accounts, tally sticks, reciprocal credit, gift economies, mutual aid …. that don’t neatly belong inside that Moneta lineage, even if they sometimes rhyme with it or get retroactively labelled as “money.”
reciprocity ness et al.. clive on love and reciprocity et al.. gift\ness et al.. david on mutual aid ness et al..
When we stop pretending that everything is just “money in disguise,” we can see multiple lineages and logics more clearly. Then we can say, without confusion: this is the Moneta-style money tradition, and those are other ways humans have coordinated value, obligation, and care
all still forms of people telling other people what to do
obligation ness et al
…. which deserve to be understood in their own terms rather than being absorbed into the money-gravity metaphor
Just doing that small act of naming the lineage of both the term and the institution starts to loosen the spell. It makes space for more than one tradition to be visible, instead of letting “money” swallow all forms of coordination or coinage by default.
I’d also happily admit that money as tradition, money as cultural story, money as egregore, and many other framings can all be valid at the same time.
But what is even more important is something even more basic and older: a resource-coordination protocol that underpins money and every form of value exchange, a kind of minimal grammar of pooled commitments, claims, and settlements.
yes to coord that underpins all.. to me.. any form of m\a\p ie: commitments, claims, settlements, grammar, .. are cancerous distractions
If we start from that grammar, “money” becomes just one particular dialect rather than the universal language.
That shift is what interests me: recovering the underlying coordination patterns so we can see where the Moneta-style money tradition is just one historical specialization, not the essence of human organizing.
need 1st/most: means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening as global detox so we can org around legit needs
______
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
______
______
be you. 