post : bond

light - knot tapestry

light – knot tapestry

it has taken me a while to say,
that i dont have as much to say
as in previous episodes.


{click me, muse-ich}—–> the smiths —ask me —

morrissey croons, nature is a language, can’t you read?

and in a fit of detournement (as i find the following is not exactly morrissey’s words):
if it’s not love, then it’s the bond that will bring us together.

i began researching some scientific concepts, in order to get a handle on, say, the chemistry of being: the bonds that, per a certain logic, account for condensed matter. why do certain elements combine while others repulse each other? i believe in affinities, attraction. a world of explanations for these relations exist, and so too does an earth that exceeds our ability to map it.

ionic bonds
describe connections between charged particles. the material of the bond–as with all bonds–is energy. specifically, in this language of chemistry, the material of a bond is made of electrons. the electron which creates the ionic bond is not shared between particles (atoms), but is transferred to a vacancy in one atom from an excess in another. I read that “one nucleus offers a more tightly bound position to an electron than does another nucleus, with the result that one atom may transfer an electron to the other.” The transfer makes the atom receiving an electron a negative ion and the one dislocating an electron a positive ion. This charge is static, as this transaction is irreversible, and so the bond between them is called “electrostatic attraction.”

the notion of a “static attraction” is an ideology of relation, and is  perhaps optimistic or pessimistic depending on one’s perspective. what kind of attraction is never-changing, always the same, static? since life is experienced as ever-changing in a bare realm of feeling, then descriptions which appeal to a static experience imply an ideology transcendent of feeling. in other words, a concept of “static attraction” implies that the infinite variability of feeling is organized by a sense or a logic that is apart from or above or not realizable in feeling.

the ionic bond is forged between polar opposites: positive and negative energies that are statically attracted. polarization entails opposition. are ionic bonds “extreme examples of polarization”? “extreme” here is to imply a temporality that exceeds the life experience of ever-changing conditions. when a description of opposition includes a scientificized notion of static temporality–that nothing will change about this situation of opposition–we find not only a discourse of transcendence, but also a scientific ideal in support of endless war. indeed, ionic bonds “do not easily bridge cracks and fractures.” ionic bonds manifest as crystals, which, like memory, are brittle and easily broken when their static carapaces encounter the dynamism of life which challenges the continuity of so-called static opposition.

metallic bonds
describe a bond forged through a “sea” of electrons shared inbetween atoms. “In this sea, each electron is free…to be associated with a great many atoms at once.” freedom is a concept whose appearance alters in different contexts. for this inquiry, i use free to mean that each electron is “attracted to many atoms, without being part of any given atom.”

though i find such free electrons described as “delocalized,” we might also challenge a notion of local that necessarily entails bondage. if free electrons “delocalize” then it follows that localized electrons are in bondage. instead of bondage, is it possible to think of particularity–a specificity of locality–as the condition of possibility for freedom? for what is it that we wish to characterize as free if not something in particular? do we not need a designation of location to be defined–even if only temporarily–in order to resist the determination of givens and create indeterminable flows between things? to say in other words, between what things and of what things do metallic bonds occur, if not actual things in locatable space? maybe the metallic bond highlights how all locations are both intact and delocalizable, which in this sense means relocalizable–able to find new locations.

the metallic bond is strong but flexible and its collective, relocalizable attraction allows an easy deformation of the matter it enjoins because it is “composed of atoms attracted to each other, but not in any particularly-oriented ways.” the virtues of metallic bonding are malleability and conductivity–capacities to shift and transmit energy fields. these features manifest in a “shiny” reflection and mutable forms of matter.

it is the metallic bond that describes the chemistry of gelassenheit.

{click me, muse-ich}—–> cat power–metal heart

the above is not a thorough study, but i offer it as an opening.
what would come of these bonds if, instead, we examine them in realms of finance? in an economy of safety…as in, bonds and securities?

what is the bond that keeps them together?

what is the bond that keeps them together?

i’m not throwing my towel in, settling for a scientific truth. i do think these chemical concepts come from somewhere, i believe that our language games are not simply an arbitrary spoof on life. this inquiry was inspired by a problem: by what force do entities enjoin? i hope these words allow your thoughts to find run-ways to take flight.

cites from wiki “chemical bond”


About this entry