Hi Max, thank you for your response.
if those definitions include power than it is unclear why we should think of power as an “emergent” property of coordination
The dimensions describe how coordination is structured, but power emerges from the interaction and recursive amplification of those structures. No single thread has ‘power’ in isolation. But when threads cluster in patterns—e.g., concentrated origins + exclusive participation + feedback suppression—that configuration manifests as Power Over.
What I’m trying to do is describe the structural conditions of coordination without assuming that power is already baked in. For example, the “Origin” of coordination doesn’t imply that power already exists—but rather that certain configurations of initiation can give rise to durable power asymmetries.
I see power as emergent not from the existence of coordination, but from the systemic patterning of coordination over time. That said, I’ll need to be very careful about not building implicit power relations into the model’s foundations, and I appreciate the reminder to watch for that.
Is a Thread really a basic unit? It seems to be a relation in itself.
You’re right that Threads are not universal like SI units. But their usefulness doesn’t lie in scalar equivalence—it lies in dimensional comparability. Like ecological niches or musical phrases, Threads aren’t commensurable by total value, but by structure, function, and pattern. The six dimensions allow us to map these structures relationally and compare across systems.
I probably shouldn’t use “unit” in the traditional sense (like a bit or meter). You’re right: a Thread isn’t fixed or scalar, and it can’t be made universal in a strict measurement sense without losing its richness.
But what I’m aiming for is something more like a relational building block—a structural pattern that can be analyzed across systems, not because it’s identical, but because it’s comparable along shared dimensions. Maybe “element” or “module” is a better term than “unit”?
I’m still feeling this out, and would really welcome your thoughts on whether that kind of “relational modularity” is a viable compromise between universality and context sensitivity. Have you come across other frameworks that try to balance those poles? Or would you suggest a different ontological starting point altogether?
Thanks again—this is exactly the kind of pressure-testing I’m hoping for as I refine the model.
Pieter