Ooooh you know Tazz got a little obsessed today when you see like 5 tesseracts stacked at the top of the forum . . .
Well anyways, This is partly inspired by all the talk that Farsight and ET have been doing about "social science." As they keep saying social science is the real tech, the real key. Ok then. Social science we go.
Units of interaction can be thought of as trust actions. They form temporary trusts. And it is no coincidence that the legal framework of what we do in reality is in fact trusts. Usually when you want to interpret legal arrangements fundamentally in comes down to fiduciary trusts. So I'll elaborate.
Right now while I am posting this into the forum, Farsight is trustee and I am beneficiary. Farsight has a forum up saying "hey buddy you can post something if you want" and I'm like "ok cool, let's do it." If we want to define it by ISBE-relationships, from what I now know about Farsight we might say that a relationship is now formed between me and Ebonique. Because it's been said that Ebonique is basically the brain of Farsight. We could go a rung lower and say that Courtney is the Trustee but the Trustee is really the fiduciary holder that if they go, the trust goes. And right now I'm under the impression that if Ebonique goes, Farsight goes.
Moving on.
Once I post, the Trust changes. I'm not absolutely certain which way this next unit is defined because it's either that I am the Trustee and you (now reading this) are the beneficiary. *OR* we might say that Ebonique is now the holder of this content, and Ebonique is the Trustee once again, and you are the beneficiary.
The point is that it helps us micro-refine exactly where the position is of obligation, responsibility (response ability) , purpose, benefit, provision, goodwill, and all those things converge. The nice thing about a trust is that it can be defined ISBE to ISBE rather than fiction to fiction. A trust, in a very subtle way, is like a living being between two others. It doesn't necessarily exist long enough for an ISBE to take interest in "owning" it, but it flits open with some sort of life force. It exists with the nature of intent behind it. To have the trustee benefit the beneficiary.
Businesses like an LLC are not a true Trust, they are legal fictions belonging to some other Trust. Think of a worm cut at some point, still living but kind of artificially separated. Subsisting on a sort of vampiric necessity in order to stay alive. Fractured. Place legal fictions everywhere, and you have an entire network of fractured life forces, with no real clarity as to whom is trustee and whom is beneficiary. Why are we doing things, what's the point.
Think of those things in life that truly anchor you with purpose. You have a child and you think "I must make this child's life a good one. That is my job now." Suddenly you *know* yourself as trustee, and they as beneficiary. You start a project and you know who the clients are and it's a labour of love. You really want to make this work. You *know* yourself as trustee and the clients as beneficiary.
Even think of an arrest. Someone does a crime and you have to arrest them. But internally you have a sort of moral search. What is that moral search? You are trying to ask yourself if you are truly acting as the rightful trustee, and if the people in the community, including the one being arrested, is the beneficiary of your current trust.
Anyways, on and on it goes.
Trusts as the unit of social science. A way to clarify how we see things, feel things, and bring a sort of living context to the nature of how and why we do things.