Why Do We Do The Things We Do?

Good question.  It focuses on what we do, what ever action that may be an asks why we do it.  That is one way to back into the problem domain by simply observing action and asking why the observed action happened.  Curiosity, the need to know, at least "explain" since "knowing" is an ambiguous term...unless it is not.  Who knows?

Dual Process Theory thinks that it knows something.  It...."provides an account of how a phenomenon can occur in two different ways, or as a result of two different processes".  Reduction to a duality is a good place to start.  There are dualities of things and dualities of actions.  Things and Actions are a duality.  All dualities are the children of a higher order duality until the higher order level parent is no longer a duality but is a singularity.

Another view of  Dualism (philosophy of the mind).  A high degree of conceptual abstraction required to go there!  There should be an app for that.  Is an App an object or an action?  Why, my dear, it is anything you want it to be.  It all depends on how you look at it.

Thing is a singularity concept.  All things are things.  Defining a thing by using the same word to define it is a singularity.  Object and an Action are dualities of a Thing.  They are both Things, each have the nature of their higher order single conceptual shared self called Thing.

Where to start?  All things are things.  This link goes to a google result that frames things in both physical and meta physical domains.  The look and feel of the phrase "All things are things" has an object orientation where we perceive the notion of "thing" as applicable to an object rather than its action which is perceived as a "different" thing.  It is kind of a mental back flip way of looking at things.  Some people predominantly perceive a thing by what it does.  Others perceive it predominantly by what it is.  Two approaches to perception, to standpoints from which to start a conceptual structure of the relationship nature of objects and their actions.  A shift from one approach to another is easy for some, not for others.  It all depends...............Two views of the same thing or do two views make the same thing viewed a different thing because of the view?  A definition of terms has to be made to get on with the problem.

At some degree of hierarchical duality there is singularity.  In the meta physical domain that singularity is or is not agreed upon.  One or Many?  If One then which One?  There is no One but One?  Is One a Man or a Woman?  I don't go there.  It is a tar baby.  Maybe that is my meta physical singularity:  A Tar Baby.  But that is two words........Alas.  Just don't go there, that is why.  Nobody else has ever gone there:  "Singularity is a Tar Baby".  A phrase that has never been indexed in quotes by google.  Too dumb to express or too sublime?  Either way I claim google bragging rights to be the first to say it.  I'm sure others have used different words to express the singularity.

In the real world there is less ambiguity than in the meta physical world.  Ambiguity is reducible to whatever level we want by definition all the way to declarations of absolute, like human rights.

Why for so many years have I chased after the nature of what money is.  That chasing my tail because in the current debt based money system money is not structured on what money is as an object but what money does in its action of transaction between accounts.  The Information Age is increasingly defining all money as a number in an account.  It is by virtue of a number in a controlling account that money is a creature of function, not form other than mathematical dualistic existence by virtue of a balance sheet equation where the same mathematical number is a duality of plus and minus.

So, (logically thinking and speaking) the higher order singularity of the balance sheet duality of the same non zero  number existing in an equal plus and minus state is.......a singularity of Zero, nothing.

Do we start counting at One or do we start counting at Zero?  It depends, which is hardly and absolute statement.

Wikipedia: Zero
"The most common practice throughout human history has been to start counting at one, and this is the practice in early classic computer science programming languages such as Fortran and COBOL. However, in the late 1950s LISP introduced zero-based numbering for arrays while Algol 58 introduced completely flexible basing for array subscripts (allowing any positive, negative, or zero integer as base for array subscripts), and most subsequent programming languages adopted one or other of these positions."

Wikipedia: (zero object algebra)
"The zero object, by definition, must be a terminal object, which means that a morphism A → {0} must exist and be unique for an arbitrary object A. This morphism maps any element of A to 0."

This is what I think I know:

The terminal state of a loan is non-existence.

In the case of a Central Bank debt based monetary system the existence of money, (the numerical balance sheet value of a loan) was initially the product of a function of loan creation by the bank. The loan termination is a function of a Zero Object balance of Zero=Zero.  That by definition makes the loan non-existent in real time (existent in history only).

In the case of a non Central Bank loan money was pre-existing, created by  Central Bank loan.  termination of loan is the same as Central Bank loan.  The function of a Zero object balance of Zero=Zero.  However it is the debt that is dissolved to nothing by this condition, not the money that is the product of the higher level Central Bank Loan.

So what?

In medium of exchange circulation all official currency money is the same.

In an Object Oriented System the rule says that child instance of a parent class inherits the attributes of the Parent Object of their class.  A child can have the attributes of many different Parent Classes.

this is going somewhere.  When I figure out where then I will write more.

Money should be a class object with attributes independent of the Debt class object.  I have never given thought to what the higher level object is that both Money and Debt belong.  The discovery rule of Object Orientation is to ask: What parent is this object a child of?

Money and Debt, if structured as independent thing at a high level are children of what higher class object?

Law? Governance?  Governance through a nation of law founded on rights?

We do not have much control over out own governance and law.

What is a higher level than Governance?  Governance is an abstract and often ambiguous social scheme of things and their relationships and interactions based on logic human  intelligence.  There is a natural physical world of governance in which nature has physical objects interacting in accordance with natural rules.  Those physical objects have "intelligence" to the extent they have physical properties and characteristics and known methods of behavior and message passing to other objects.