It also makes me think that if value only becomes readable in relation, then the question isn’t just where value lives, but what allows that relation to persist at all.
Because without something that can carry the conditions of that relation, there’s nothing for value to emerge from.
So it becomes less about objects or exchange, and more about whether coherence can be sustained long enough for anything to matter.
Coherence is a real term for this — I'd know, I wrote a book with that name.
It sits just downstream of what you're reaching for though. Coherence becomes readable where the relational configuration is already carrying. It names the condition after it holds, not what produces the holding.
At the moment I'm writing about, there was no coherence on my side to sustain anything. What the two strangers brought was the carrying itself. Coherence came after, because of that — not before it.
Different domains name the same underlying condition differently. Coherence is one of the better translations.
I think I was using coherence as the condition that makes relation possible, but the way you’re placing it makes more sense - as something that becomes readable once the relation is already being carried.
What I’m still trying to understand is what allows that carrying to happen in the first place.
Because in your example, it doesn’t seem to come from structure, intention, or even stability on your side.
It appears in the act itself - two people moving toward something they don’t yet know.
So it feels like carrying isn’t derived from coherence, but something more primary that coherence later describes.
That’s exactly the right next question — and I think you’ve already named the answer in how you’ve framed it.
What allows relation to persist is whether what’s held within it remains compatible with what carries it. Not duration. Not coherence as a property things have. But whether the carrying can continue.
Which means the conditions for value and the conditions for persistence are the same question asked from different angles.
This lands very clearly.
It also makes me think that if value only becomes readable in relation, then the question isn’t just where value lives, but what allows that relation to persist at all.
Because without something that can carry the conditions of that relation, there’s nothing for value to emerge from.
So it becomes less about objects or exchange, and more about whether coherence can be sustained long enough for anything to matter.
Coherence is a real term for this — I'd know, I wrote a book with that name.
It sits just downstream of what you're reaching for though. Coherence becomes readable where the relational configuration is already carrying. It names the condition after it holds, not what produces the holding.
At the moment I'm writing about, there was no coherence on my side to sustain anything. What the two strangers brought was the carrying itself. Coherence came after, because of that — not before it.
Different domains name the same underlying condition differently. Coherence is one of the better translations.
That distinction helps a lot.
I think I was using coherence as the condition that makes relation possible, but the way you’re placing it makes more sense - as something that becomes readable once the relation is already being carried.
What I’m still trying to understand is what allows that carrying to happen in the first place.
Because in your example, it doesn’t seem to come from structure, intention, or even stability on your side.
It appears in the act itself - two people moving toward something they don’t yet know.
So it feels like carrying isn’t derived from coherence, but something more primary that coherence later describes.
That’s exactly the right next question — and I think you’ve already named the answer in how you’ve framed it.
What allows relation to persist is whether what’s held within it remains compatible with what carries it. Not duration. Not coherence as a property things have. But whether the carrying can continue.
Which means the conditions for value and the conditions for persistence are the same question asked from different angles.
That’s a really clean way to frame it.
If persistence depends on compatibility between what’s held and what carries it, then it’s not something fixed, it can shift over time.
Which makes me wonder whether failure isn’t just when compatibility is lost,
but when it changes slowly enough that the relation appears to hold while the conditions for carrying are already weakening.
So the relation isn’t breaking all at once -
it’s drifting out of compatibility.