Money is a Social Structure Debt or Asset - Trinity?

A device is a thing with form and function.  Money is a device that serves the need for a medium of exchange.  It is also a device that establishes and maintains a social structure.  Social structures are built on obligations.  Rights create obligations.  That is the foundation of our country.

Our monetary system is built on money in the form of debt obligations.  All our money is debt money.  The monetary unit is essentially an IOU.  An IOU that is a demand on resources.   It is a demand on resources because the IOU initially came into being in exchange for some resource that was the product of some person's labor to produce something of value.  Even if the person that expended the labor to produce a resource only had to look at the gold nugget they had stumbled upon.  They had to know where to look.

Our monetary system structured on debt created a system of IOU's for exchange in trade.  More than that it also created and became the fabric of our total social structure system in which that trade takes place.

As human beings we are predisposed, it is in our nature to think and act based on obligations.  In the animal world it is the obligation to obey instincts.  In our segment of the animal world we have formalized our instincts to conceptual devices for personal welfare and the common good.  We have institutionalized instincts that enabled us to survive.

We are predisposed to think in terms of obligations created by debt.  The theory is that obligation creates debt.  Debt can also create obligation by fiat.  What makes the two propositions different is mutual agreement and consent to acceptance of obligation or imposition of obligation or debt on one party by another.  An obligation not created and accepted mutually can be created and imposed by fiat.  That is the idea that you owe me this obligation because I say you owe it and you had better accept that.  You have no alternative, even if you disagree.  That is a demanded, commanded obligation/debt.

Religion is based on obligation/debt theory.  Agreement can be imposed or freely chosen by anyone.  It can be offered and freely chosen by anyone.  in either case it is based on a concept of obligation/debt.  We owe something for what was given.

Changing the concept of money from a debt money system to a real money debt free system is a shift in perception from money as a representation of something that is ultimately owed as the foundation of the structure to something that is fundamentally owned free of any debt.  In the current system banks own all medium of exchange money.  In the debt free money system we own all the medium of exchange money supply and can say we do not owe anybody anything for its existence and use that has to be paid back in terms of principal or interest.  It is ours because we say it is.  We say that about freedom too.

Degrees of debt are measured in the absence of money.  Degrees of enslavement are measured in the absence of freedom.  We tend to think and prefer the presence of something rather than the conceptual construct that the total absence of a thing, the non-existence of it is in itself a concept that gives the idea of nothing a conceptual substance.  The absence of any degree of good is bad.  The absence of any degree of heat is absolute zero.  The absence of time infinity (no time).

At the conceptual structural foundation of money I prefer to see it as a thing free of any degree of obligation or debt association.  The only obligation associated with money at that level is for us to create and maintain a monetary system of debt free money like an operating system for framework in which all obligation/debt application programs of free market exchange operate.

It was therefore immediately difficult to apply my Digital Dollar concepts to myself because the first thing they had to take into account when I spent them is that they are spending from my debt account with a stock broker.

The entire structure of the monetary system is shifted from debt to asset.  From lack of something that is scarce by its absence and priced accordingly to something that is abundant in its existence for us to use and priced only in terms of system maintenance costs.  Those costs are for the labor of those that maintain and administer the monetary operating system.  Explicitly, those that do that must not have within their control domain the application programs that operate on that system.

The frame containing the framework, the central idea frame or statement of problem domain becomes the driving force for the creation of the framework.  Microsoft plan was to control both the operating system and control of primary application programs run on it.  Apple planned to control the operating system and the machines that ran the application programs.  The computing domain that each chose as the frame for its implementation of computing determined the framework.  One chose operating system and application programs as the domain of their business model the other chose operating systems and machines as the business model and expanded into application programs but did not control the market for them, only competed in that market.

I am a victim of my thinking that has framed money as a debt money system because it is the system that has established the framework in which I have existed and which I have used all my life.  It is difficult to shift perception of money from debt money to asset money when the application of money does not essentially change in our society to a debt based society and its thinking.   The some problem exists in regards to our environment.   The frame has always been one of extraction of resources for wealth creation.  The frame must shift to abundance of resources through establishes/facilitates and maintains and abundance of resources.

I suppose totally different conceptual view points of the same thing that dictate seemingly or in reality two different conceptual structural implementing/supporting systems always did have a difficult time in being first perceived for what they in fact are and then accepted in practice for their validity.

Ownership of money at the micro user application level.  Ownership of money at the macro operating and system maintenance level.  It all operates in a network on operating systems facilitating application programs.  The entire thing operates on the presence or absence of an electrical charge and the concepts we have created  and associated to their  binary electrical presence or absence.

Back to square One again.  That is the iterative process of my learning.  It should however not be necessary to go back to square One all the time if in fact I am learning something that I can build on.  All that should be necessary is going back to a place where I was sure that I was at.  If the circle of knowledge never expands in this iterative process then I am going around in circles within a non-expanding universe.  Every time I think that to be true and therefore think I should stop chasing my tail my universe seems to expand.

I should return to some thing I found a couple of blog entries ago:  Computational Trinitarianism.  I have been thinking about it.

Last night I had a dream.  I was on a bay where there were many other people for some kind of an event.  Their attention was directed toward the event away from the bay.  I was looking at the bay and suddenly a small two engine two colored plane appeared flying very fast and low.  I could see that it was going to crash.  I shouted out "That plane is going to crash".  Some turned quickly enough to see it.  All the others that turned more slowly only saw the spray of the crash.  I immediately pointed to the crash site out on the bay to fix a point of reference on the other side and continued to hold my finger out pointing at it.  That is what you do on a ship when a man goes overboard.  Everyone that sees it points at the constant place the the man is located as the ship executes the recovery maneuver.   I was hoping that someone else at a different point was doing the same and that we could get through all the 9-11 calls that I was sure would be made with our triangulating points of reference to guide rescue craft to the exact point of the crash.  That information would be essential to any rescue attempt especially if there were was only a small amount of debris or maybe even no debris at the actual point of impact.

I think this dream was an expression of my waking thoughts about reading Computational Tinitarianism.  It had a proof, a program and a structure and a means to communicate among all three.

The doctrine of computational trinitarianism holds that computation manifests itself in three forms: proofs of propositions, programs of a type, and mappings between structures.  These three aspects give rise to three sects of worship: Logic, which gives primacy to proofs and propositions; Languages, which gives primacy to programs and types; Categories, which gives primacy to mappings and structures. 

Today I will revisit this cornerstone square one concept.  It coincides with my trinity concept that manifests itself as two nouns and a verb.  Two objects with an action between them that implements their relationship to give the whole of all three meaning in a trinitarianism.

The central dogma of computational trinitarianism holds that Logic, Languages, and Categories are but three manifestations of one divine notion of computation.  There is no preferred route to enlightenment: each aspect provides insights that comprise the experience of computation in our lives.

Logic and Languages are two conceptual objects nouns.  Languages are the verb (is the verbalized noun, the programming function) that implements the relationship between Logic and Categories.  I take the object oriented approach, I can find debate (sometimes heated because one does not understand the other is simply a different approach to the same problem domain but these are programmers that program a the lowest level of each approach so naturally only see the different trees not the forest they are both in) among the various schools of approach to computational programming: Functional or Object Oriented.  The trinity is the the total forest problem domain in the world of computation.  Drawing an analogy the essence of pure religious belief is fascinating and pure computing is fascinating.

Life is Simple Nouns and Verbs in a Noun --- Verb  -----Noun structure.

I could think about that all day but I have some dry wall repair to do.  I also have to figure out why the clear coat of Varathane that I put on the front steps yesterday as well as a small table top is not yet dry today and ready for a second coat.  At this rate it will take a week to dry!