Yes, what I like about it is that each new era creates a need to reconfigure the whole pattern, which is happening now as networks are arising as a dominant attractor. Every society will configure it differently...most likely. Also, the idea that Institutional forms don't necessary go away (nor tribes or markets), but they transform.
Brilliant reflections as always Jordan. Thank you. Yes this is the DAO moment. We are forming United Planet as DAO to design society from the future backwards. More on that soon. I’m looking forward to connecting with you soon.
This will happen MUCH slower than we'd like to see. The bottleneck is not the tech but the evolution of individual and coll. consciousness necessary to awaken the DAO as a new socio-economic life form capable to out-collaborate the legacy institutions. But the learning expedition started!
Jordan, Rick — Yes, good to meet you both. Since your replies yesterday overlap, I’m putting a joint reply here rather than separately below.
First, I’d note that I have never regarded TIMN as something I am trying to invent or construct. Instead, it feels like an archeological artifact I stumbled on and am still trying to unearth, open up, and see inside. As I continue, what I find interesting is not only the progression of forms in various varieties and combinations, but also the recurrence of a set of system dynamics with each monoform-through-quadriform progression: e.g., each time a new form arises and takes hold, a society becomes not only more complex but also more simplified for addressing complex problems that the old form(s) were finally failing it. This orientation I have, right or wrong, lies behind the rest of my reply.
I too have noticed that DAOs, particularly the “squad” form, look like a combination of TIMN’s tribal and network forms, energized by the digital information revolution and the emergence of the noösphere. Yet I hasten to add that this tribal aspect is not unique to the emergence of DAOs and does not necessarily mean that +N is mostly a folding-back to the T form. A case can be made that all the post-T forms emerged initially with a strong tribal aspect, which then gets reduced as the form matures. Thus +I entities (states, armies, the Papacy) in their larval phases were constructed by, and around, particular families, clans, chiefs, aristocracies, religious orders, etc., whose identities and tenets were quite tribe-like at first. Only much later did these entities modernize and become impersonal and bureaucratic. Much the same goes for early family-based businesses and guilds as the market form spread; later it became based more on professional rules than cronyism. This, according to my view of TIMN, will be repeated with +N, which is presently still in early phases.
Over the past decade or two, as more people have come across TIMN and then became interpreters and even proponents of it (or at least its possibilities), I have come across two interpretations that I have had to wonder about: (1) that it is a recurrence of the T form at a higher level; (2) that it is a transcendent form that modifies all prior forms. Sometimes these two views are combined. Maybe that will turn out to be the case, contrary to what I sense. Meanwhile, I shall try t keep track of them but persist with what I’ve already deduced: that +N is a parallel form, not a meta-form, and it will generate a distinct specialized fourth sector.
Here’s partly why I doubt the two interpretations: Regarding the first point, if +N is a radical recurrence of T, say T 2.0, and social evolution amounts to a kind of spiral, then I would speculate that what’s next would be +I 2.0, then +M 2.0, etc. This might make sense. But it doesn’t make sense to me, because it means that three forms remains the maximum stretch of paradigm. Besides, in my view, +N will become a lot bigger and grander than T 2.0 can connote.
As for +N being a transcendent or meta form, every form has had believers who think that their particular form should be the meta-form ideologically. Today, for example, we are coming out of a few decades when pro-M libertarians and other extreme capitalists have argued for massive privatizations and the intrusion of capitalist principles into nearly all areas of life. TIMN implies that keeping the forms in balance and respecting their limitations as well as their powers is optimal; pro-M extremism has distorted our society. So, even though +N will modify all, it is not solely a modifier form; TIMN does not favor its becoming the master meta-form ideologically or philosophically. Besides, we would still be stuck with a triform society, as if that were the end of our capacity for complexity.
I do indeed hope DAOs favor the development of better public goods and assurance commons. Yet, here’s a question for you (or anyone): Suppose hospitals and schools were redesigned and moved out of the existing public and/or private sectors into a new +N commons sector, then would/could those schools and hospitals be turned into DAOs? Or perhaps the DAOs would exist in the interstitial networks connecting all the schools, hospitals, etc. together? Do any DAO writings offer answers?
David, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I learn something every time I read your views. What I like about your explanation above is that it keeps the future open and doesn't go too far into the kind of normative developmental approach that others have advocated. As a student of complexity theory, I feel that this kind of openness to the emergence of something new is important and reflects a real and ontological uncertainty about the future. As to your question above about the development of a +N commons and whether all those organizations (e.g. schools and hospitals) will become DAOs, I cannot say. I am just learning about DAOs myself (which drew me to Jordan's post!) and see them as one interesting form of governance, but so far I don't think it's the only option.
Rick, thanks, that’s encouraging to hear from you. And right now is a good time for me to feel encouraged, as I’m trying to muster the energy and resolve to re-focus on TIMN in a way that that pulls together scattered pieces, updating and integrating them. Maybe I’ll try doing so here on Substack.
As for DAOs, I remain keen but with caveats: Despite points about their scaling-up potential, my sense is that schools and hospitals, for example, are too big and complicated to be transformed into DAOs (or sets of DAOs) as they are currently being conceived. Something more/else will be needed. Also, the A in DAO currently stands for “autonomous”; and that’s just not quite right (as Kei Kreutler points out in her “Prehistory…” post). TIMN’s +N will require organizational forms designed from the start for connectivity (not for standing-alone like typical government and business organizations). Organizational autonomy is not what +N implies. The A in DAO would be more accurate if it stood for “associative” or “associational” instead.
Since TIMN was mentioned (to my delight), and since your approach has much in common with TIMN, and since I regard DAOs as an expression of the rise of the +N (information-age networks) form, I’d like to ask you (all) about something I’ve wondered for quite a while:
According to TIMN as I understand it, societies began ages ago by emphasizing the T (tribal kinship) form (which has morphed into what we now call civil society). Later, societies evolved to add the +I (hierarchical institutional) form, resulting in biform (T+I) societies with states. The +M (markets) form emerged centuries later, and societies that learned to add it became triform (T+I+M) societies.
These triform societies and their three sectors — civil society as a sector, the government’s public sector, and market actors’ private sector — pretty much predominate today. But, after being around now for over two centuries, they have reached their limits; progress has resulted in problems and complexities that their three sectors no longer suffice to resolve.
So, from a TIMN perspective, we are entering an era when it’s time to let the +N form fully emerge and do its thing as people learn to combine it with the prior forms (which will in turn be immensely modified in the process). The result will be quadriform (T+I+M+N) societies.
So, here’s my concern: TIMN tells me that the rise of each form, in turn, creates a new sector of activity and actors, and enables that sector to do something better than could be done using any of the other forms. T’s kinship dynamics generates families and communities, later CSOs and NGOs, who can work together on voluntary matters. +I eventually results in public-sector actors and activities, +M in private-sector actors and activities, and then in today’s debates about relying on government or market solutions.
But what about +N? What next/new/fourth sector could it generate, to society’s benefit?
DAOs look like a beneficial way to advance +N. Yet in most all the writings I’ve come across, the more actors and activities that can be turned into DAOs, the better. The same goes for all I’ve seen by P2P and DiSCO proponents. And most all discussions are focused on economic matters. It seems like an anything-and-everything approach, the more the better, with lots of hopes for radical transformations, especially of capitalism or its end.
I’ve yet to see to find voices who foresee that DAOs or other prospective +N formations may be far better suited to some particular activities and actors than others, and whether this may imply emergence of distinct new sector that will takes its place alongside the existing three, and be substantially different and distinct from them.
Any thoughts?
My own deduction from TIMN is that the actors and activities that have become most problematic for our existing three sectors, and that may be most suited to migration into a separate distinct new/fourth sector, are in the fields of health, education, welfare, and the environment — all care-oriented and care-centric activities. In my view, we should start proposing and planning for them to go into a new sector, probably a “commons sector,” that is highly networked and has collaborative forms of property, financing, administration, etc. that are very different from what we have for the existing three sectors. But so far I remain alone in that view/deduction. And DAOs may not be enough for its development
Hi David (and nice to meet you). My gut tells me that there might be a structure such that -N is a sort of "return" to T in a higher octave (a spiral rather than a line), but that is pure intuition.
In any event, my experience is that if you look closely at the real DAO universe (i.e., the people actively working in the space), there is by necessity, a real focus on what DAOs are actually better for. And there is, indeed, a growing sense that it looks a lot like an "ecosystem" of "public goods" or "commons".
In any event, you are not alone. This is also where I am focused.
Jordan, I share your intuition about the possible "spiral" in this development. When I first encountered TIMN, I felt it was similar to spiral dynamics, accept that it was far more grounded, and way less hubristic!
Hi David, I'm not sure you are alone in your view that a commons needs to be developed, although there seem to be many different experiments in play about how to go about it.
Oof, I mis-wrote then. Yes, lots of people believe a commons needs to be developed. Where I seem to be alone is in the deduction that a distinct fourth sector will emerge, taking its place alongside the existing three sectors (our civil-society or some would say social or voluntary sector, public sector, and private sector), developing as distinct an identity and purpose as they currently have, and that it will probably be a commons sector structured for care-centric matters: e.g., the ones I listed.
There are other fourth-sector ideas/proposals around: e.g., Sabeti, Bauwens, Raworth. But the way I read them, they are mostly about new pro-commons less-capitalist approaches for social entrepreneurs who favor business-type collectives and cooperatives. Fine with me, but the result is not a true distinct fourth sector (from TIMN view), but economics-oriented appendages to the existing three sectors, or a kind of philosophical meta-sector atop the existing three.
What I think TIMN says is that +N will result in a distinct separate independent sector, with its own language; and best I can deduce is that it will house the care-centric actors and activities that the existing sectors can no longer handle well: health, education, welfare, the environment, and related insurance entitites. That's where I seem to be alone. For whenever I ask, what actors and activities may be most suited to forming this next sector (realm, sub-system), the answers I receive, if I even receive an answer, tend to be along the lines of anyone and anything who wants to be pro-commons. That's not what TIMN implies, assuming I'm right about TIMN (which I'm far from finished with).
I hope the above is clearer. If not, ask more. And thanks for asking me to clarify in the first place.
David, I don't think you mis-wrote. I most likely mis-read. Need to ponder this a bit. I tend to view the arising of +N as an emergent new domain that transcends and includes (but reconfigures) the other preceding domains. Perhaps that is not consistent with how you view TIMN.
Nice. Echoes of Ronfeldt's TIMN theory here?
Don't know it. Link?
Never mind, found it in the P2P Foundation repository. Hmmm ... yes. Quite.
Yes, what I like about it is that each new era creates a need to reconfigure the whole pattern, which is happening now as networks are arising as a dominant attractor. Every society will configure it differently...most likely. Also, the idea that Institutional forms don't necessary go away (nor tribes or markets), but they transform.
Adding the link... https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Tribes,_Institutions,_Markets,_Networks
Brilliant reflections as always Jordan. Thank you. Yes this is the DAO moment. We are forming United Planet as DAO to design society from the future backwards. More on that soon. I’m looking forward to connecting with you soon.
Ah, good. Much to discuss about this approach!
This will happen MUCH slower than we'd like to see. The bottleneck is not the tech but the evolution of individual and coll. consciousness necessary to awaken the DAO as a new socio-economic life form capable to out-collaborate the legacy institutions. But the learning expedition started!
Jordan, Rick — Yes, good to meet you both. Since your replies yesterday overlap, I’m putting a joint reply here rather than separately below.
First, I’d note that I have never regarded TIMN as something I am trying to invent or construct. Instead, it feels like an archeological artifact I stumbled on and am still trying to unearth, open up, and see inside. As I continue, what I find interesting is not only the progression of forms in various varieties and combinations, but also the recurrence of a set of system dynamics with each monoform-through-quadriform progression: e.g., each time a new form arises and takes hold, a society becomes not only more complex but also more simplified for addressing complex problems that the old form(s) were finally failing it. This orientation I have, right or wrong, lies behind the rest of my reply.
I too have noticed that DAOs, particularly the “squad” form, look like a combination of TIMN’s tribal and network forms, energized by the digital information revolution and the emergence of the noösphere. Yet I hasten to add that this tribal aspect is not unique to the emergence of DAOs and does not necessarily mean that +N is mostly a folding-back to the T form. A case can be made that all the post-T forms emerged initially with a strong tribal aspect, which then gets reduced as the form matures. Thus +I entities (states, armies, the Papacy) in their larval phases were constructed by, and around, particular families, clans, chiefs, aristocracies, religious orders, etc., whose identities and tenets were quite tribe-like at first. Only much later did these entities modernize and become impersonal and bureaucratic. Much the same goes for early family-based businesses and guilds as the market form spread; later it became based more on professional rules than cronyism. This, according to my view of TIMN, will be repeated with +N, which is presently still in early phases.
Over the past decade or two, as more people have come across TIMN and then became interpreters and even proponents of it (or at least its possibilities), I have come across two interpretations that I have had to wonder about: (1) that it is a recurrence of the T form at a higher level; (2) that it is a transcendent form that modifies all prior forms. Sometimes these two views are combined. Maybe that will turn out to be the case, contrary to what I sense. Meanwhile, I shall try t keep track of them but persist with what I’ve already deduced: that +N is a parallel form, not a meta-form, and it will generate a distinct specialized fourth sector.
Here’s partly why I doubt the two interpretations: Regarding the first point, if +N is a radical recurrence of T, say T 2.0, and social evolution amounts to a kind of spiral, then I would speculate that what’s next would be +I 2.0, then +M 2.0, etc. This might make sense. But it doesn’t make sense to me, because it means that three forms remains the maximum stretch of paradigm. Besides, in my view, +N will become a lot bigger and grander than T 2.0 can connote.
As for +N being a transcendent or meta form, every form has had believers who think that their particular form should be the meta-form ideologically. Today, for example, we are coming out of a few decades when pro-M libertarians and other extreme capitalists have argued for massive privatizations and the intrusion of capitalist principles into nearly all areas of life. TIMN implies that keeping the forms in balance and respecting their limitations as well as their powers is optimal; pro-M extremism has distorted our society. So, even though +N will modify all, it is not solely a modifier form; TIMN does not favor its becoming the master meta-form ideologically or philosophically. Besides, we would still be stuck with a triform society, as if that were the end of our capacity for complexity.
I do indeed hope DAOs favor the development of better public goods and assurance commons. Yet, here’s a question for you (or anyone): Suppose hospitals and schools were redesigned and moved out of the existing public and/or private sectors into a new +N commons sector, then would/could those schools and hospitals be turned into DAOs? Or perhaps the DAOs would exist in the interstitial networks connecting all the schools, hospitals, etc. together? Do any DAO writings offer answers?
Onward.
David, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I learn something every time I read your views. What I like about your explanation above is that it keeps the future open and doesn't go too far into the kind of normative developmental approach that others have advocated. As a student of complexity theory, I feel that this kind of openness to the emergence of something new is important and reflects a real and ontological uncertainty about the future. As to your question above about the development of a +N commons and whether all those organizations (e.g. schools and hospitals) will become DAOs, I cannot say. I am just learning about DAOs myself (which drew me to Jordan's post!) and see them as one interesting form of governance, but so far I don't think it's the only option.
Rick, thanks, that’s encouraging to hear from you. And right now is a good time for me to feel encouraged, as I’m trying to muster the energy and resolve to re-focus on TIMN in a way that that pulls together scattered pieces, updating and integrating them. Maybe I’ll try doing so here on Substack.
As for DAOs, I remain keen but with caveats: Despite points about their scaling-up potential, my sense is that schools and hospitals, for example, are too big and complicated to be transformed into DAOs (or sets of DAOs) as they are currently being conceived. Something more/else will be needed. Also, the A in DAO currently stands for “autonomous”; and that’s just not quite right (as Kei Kreutler points out in her “Prehistory…” post). TIMN’s +N will require organizational forms designed from the start for connectivity (not for standing-alone like typical government and business organizations). Organizational autonomy is not what +N implies. The A in DAO would be more accurate if it stood for “associative” or “associational” instead.
Concise and inviting thinking as always. Jordan, would love to have you join us for an AMA - https://www.invisiblecollege.xyz (tayken#0458 in Discord)
Since TIMN was mentioned (to my delight), and since your approach has much in common with TIMN, and since I regard DAOs as an expression of the rise of the +N (information-age networks) form, I’d like to ask you (all) about something I’ve wondered for quite a while:
According to TIMN as I understand it, societies began ages ago by emphasizing the T (tribal kinship) form (which has morphed into what we now call civil society). Later, societies evolved to add the +I (hierarchical institutional) form, resulting in biform (T+I) societies with states. The +M (markets) form emerged centuries later, and societies that learned to add it became triform (T+I+M) societies.
These triform societies and their three sectors — civil society as a sector, the government’s public sector, and market actors’ private sector — pretty much predominate today. But, after being around now for over two centuries, they have reached their limits; progress has resulted in problems and complexities that their three sectors no longer suffice to resolve.
So, from a TIMN perspective, we are entering an era when it’s time to let the +N form fully emerge and do its thing as people learn to combine it with the prior forms (which will in turn be immensely modified in the process). The result will be quadriform (T+I+M+N) societies.
So, here’s my concern: TIMN tells me that the rise of each form, in turn, creates a new sector of activity and actors, and enables that sector to do something better than could be done using any of the other forms. T’s kinship dynamics generates families and communities, later CSOs and NGOs, who can work together on voluntary matters. +I eventually results in public-sector actors and activities, +M in private-sector actors and activities, and then in today’s debates about relying on government or market solutions.
But what about +N? What next/new/fourth sector could it generate, to society’s benefit?
DAOs look like a beneficial way to advance +N. Yet in most all the writings I’ve come across, the more actors and activities that can be turned into DAOs, the better. The same goes for all I’ve seen by P2P and DiSCO proponents. And most all discussions are focused on economic matters. It seems like an anything-and-everything approach, the more the better, with lots of hopes for radical transformations, especially of capitalism or its end.
I’ve yet to see to find voices who foresee that DAOs or other prospective +N formations may be far better suited to some particular activities and actors than others, and whether this may imply emergence of distinct new sector that will takes its place alongside the existing three, and be substantially different and distinct from them.
Any thoughts?
My own deduction from TIMN is that the actors and activities that have become most problematic for our existing three sectors, and that may be most suited to migration into a separate distinct new/fourth sector, are in the fields of health, education, welfare, and the environment — all care-oriented and care-centric activities. In my view, we should start proposing and planning for them to go into a new sector, probably a “commons sector,” that is highly networked and has collaborative forms of property, financing, administration, etc. that are very different from what we have for the existing three sectors. But so far I remain alone in that view/deduction. And DAOs may not be enough for its development
Anyway, just a long-winded comment. Onward.
Hi David (and nice to meet you). My gut tells me that there might be a structure such that -N is a sort of "return" to T in a higher octave (a spiral rather than a line), but that is pure intuition.
In any event, my experience is that if you look closely at the real DAO universe (i.e., the people actively working in the space), there is by necessity, a real focus on what DAOs are actually better for. And there is, indeed, a growing sense that it looks a lot like an "ecosystem" of "public goods" or "commons".
In any event, you are not alone. This is also where I am focused.
Good to hear. I put long reply up top. Please see.
Jordan, I share your intuition about the possible "spiral" in this development. When I first encountered TIMN, I felt it was similar to spiral dynamics, accept that it was far more grounded, and way less hubristic!
Hi David, I'm not sure you are alone in your view that a commons needs to be developed, although there seem to be many different experiments in play about how to go about it.
Oof, I mis-wrote then. Yes, lots of people believe a commons needs to be developed. Where I seem to be alone is in the deduction that a distinct fourth sector will emerge, taking its place alongside the existing three sectors (our civil-society or some would say social or voluntary sector, public sector, and private sector), developing as distinct an identity and purpose as they currently have, and that it will probably be a commons sector structured for care-centric matters: e.g., the ones I listed.
There are other fourth-sector ideas/proposals around: e.g., Sabeti, Bauwens, Raworth. But the way I read them, they are mostly about new pro-commons less-capitalist approaches for social entrepreneurs who favor business-type collectives and cooperatives. Fine with me, but the result is not a true distinct fourth sector (from TIMN view), but economics-oriented appendages to the existing three sectors, or a kind of philosophical meta-sector atop the existing three.
What I think TIMN says is that +N will result in a distinct separate independent sector, with its own language; and best I can deduce is that it will house the care-centric actors and activities that the existing sectors can no longer handle well: health, education, welfare, the environment, and related insurance entitites. That's where I seem to be alone. For whenever I ask, what actors and activities may be most suited to forming this next sector (realm, sub-system), the answers I receive, if I even receive an answer, tend to be along the lines of anyone and anything who wants to be pro-commons. That's not what TIMN implies, assuming I'm right about TIMN (which I'm far from finished with).
I hope the above is clearer. If not, ask more. And thanks for asking me to clarify in the first place.
David, I don't think you mis-wrote. I most likely mis-read. Need to ponder this a bit. I tend to view the arising of +N as an emergent new domain that transcends and includes (but reconfigures) the other preceding domains. Perhaps that is not consistent with how you view TIMN.
Good point to raise. I put long reply up top.
Hi. One word: cooperatives.
"The Invisible College" – those who know, know ;)
Is there another reference here? Maybe I don't know. https://www.invisiblecollege.xyz
No, it’s not anything formal — just a distributed field of actors he’s loosely terming this way :)
ancient wisdom... winter... the time of going inward to better emerge come spring
Great post.
Here are the notes & recordings from my How to DAO course for anyone that wants to get up to speed: https://twitter.com/daoist321/status/1449178528562532359
https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/a-speculative-sketch-of-a-dao-with-open-collective/ via @m_t_prewitt
Looks compelling.