The in/as/to living ontology pattern frames all multi-user interactions as a play. It is an explicitly instructional and social pattern and has no binding real world implications until bound by a more specific pattern. In other words, it structures fiction that only becomes nonfiction once it has commitments of social and financial capital, which predict/project/bet on its credibility.
 social fiction
To interpret it socially, a person is in a play or act or scene, cast as a particular role in which they have been carefully matched against others in that scene for compatibility, and says what they have to say to the other, but with potential interventions or offres to mediate from others - or even the audience. See in/out for the general distinction and director/actor/object/victim for consequences of ignoring audiences.
 abstracts informal social trust systems
This pattern abstracts all non-financial positive repute systems that don't involve exclusive commitment. In other words, there's no ontological difference between celebrity performers who acquire notoriety due to their ability to act in roles, and the less famous performers who act on private stages. To know the difference would require more information and therefore a more specialized pattern.
 "...life would be art"
According to Glenn Gould, in a perfect world, there would be no art. The audience would be artists and their life would be art. This pattern simply implements that view.