 So now we're recording the OGM call for Thursday, August 20th, 2020. So part of the reason why our checkouts are really rich is that we don't have another place to go look for the kind of things that show up in checkouts, check ins, check out being entirely something different. And so experimenting with where we could put rich profiles and what that might look like and how we might tell pieces of our stories. I don't think there's a replacement for the check-in process, but it would be nice if we could learn more quickly about what each of us is involved in. When I have changed my signature, one way to do this for example, after watching too many people with really long automatic signatures at the end of their emails, they just kept getting longer with links and other kinds of stuff. And be the change that you want to see in the world just a few too many times. I adopted Derek Sivers' notion of a now page. So slash now would be a sort of a file that's always available. So my sig is just slash now, and that's a link to my own website with a webpage that I try to keep updated. I think I don't think I do enough to keep it updated, but it's intended to give everybody a snapshot of where I am and what I'm up to. It's a nice practice. And you can put your page anywhere you want, as opposed to on a particular service. But I think if and when we get to OGM as more of a platform or a mix of platforms, then we will start to use that platform for our profiles. And I think that'll be fantastic because then we will be like little pearls in Indra's net, and we can sort of follow the strings around and it would be really compelling and interesting. So that all taking up time before check-ins. If we could do pretty brief check-ins so that we can get to some plenary conversation, that will be great. And I will, cool, and Scott just posted, that sounds good. And if it can be kept like pretty tight, that'd be awesome. And number three, something cool and relevant, something sort of OGM-y in your life, that would be great. So I'm Jerry, I'm in Portland, Oregon. The weather is calming. We got a couple days that sort of touched a hundred, but we've been really, really lucky in terms of firestorms and thunderstorms and droughts and all kinds of other things. And OGM is sort of large in my head, so I'll just come back to that. And let's go backwards from the bottom, Shimon, Kevin Jones, and Peter Van. So Shimon, can you check-in please? And this week we're keeping the check-ins pretty brief. And Shimon, I'm not sure you're hearing me because you're not going off mute, or you're talking and we're not hearing you because you're on mute. Okay, let's go Kevin, then Peter, then Max, and we'll come back to Shimon. Hi, I'm Kevin Jones. I'm actually at the beach in Edisto, South Carolina, first time away from the house. We bubbled with some friends at a house up the way, and that was really kind of amazing. Really briefly, I've been working on this black credit union with black churches as nodes and things. And we've discovered that a lot of people are interested in banking black just moving their cash position to there rather than some other bank. And so a small property developer who does gas stations and things is going to move a couple hundred thousand in just because, you know, he wants to put it in whole credit union, a black-led community development credit union that operates in the Mississippi Delta that we're helping to grow. So it's with the people like this thing. And we have a big contact thanks to Matt and Hank that we'll talk about when we get to that one. But anyway. That's awesome. Thank you, Kevin. Peter Van, Max, then Lauren. Peter Van from Flanders, Belgium. Nice weather. Cool down. I'm working on a very cool cybous inotribe session together with him and Amber with lots of video and artistic interventions. So lots of fun. Awesome. And I'm glad the weather's better because Belgium has been suffering a lot from heat. Max, Lauren, Matt, Mark. Hey, everybody. I missed last week's call because I was on a short raft trip in Canyon Country in western Colorado. It was awesome. The skies got some forest fire smoke in it here in western Colorado. One of the things I've been working on this last week was taking the Zoom transcript from these meetings or any Zoom transcript and building a plug-in to the visual collaboration tool Miro to do a conversational sort of swim lane visualization and start to experiment with sort of transcript to visualization. Maybe it's something that could help in the story-threading universe. So it's been fun to look over the transcript data. Thank you. And thank you in particular for sort of practicing what we preach and adding some visualization to our conversations. And do you have links you can share in the chat? That would be useful. I'll make a video when this prototype does the first kind of auto-layout and it'll be very, yeah, prototypy, but it might be fun to see. That sounds awesome. Lauren, Mark, then we'll go back to Kevin who raised his hand. It's such a coincidence that I'm going right after Max because we're working on the exact same thing. And so last week I tried to tell you that we had a really awesome kind of half OGM session on learning pods and it was just really amazing, the video that we came up with. And what we wanted to do is take that video. So I think we're doing really, really well at ideation, but we're trying to take this video and now trying to create a flow for how we storyboard this and bring it along to the story threaders who can then actually make it into, because right now it's a little bit nerdy and talking heads, but we want to bring this into more artistic. So we're trying to develop a methodology and I would love to work with you, Max, for how to do that. We also are working with this guy Peter Dowson in Australia who's a professional storyteller. So that would be amazing if we could. I'd love to figure out who's doing the story threading and then work from there. So we can develop a sort of pipeline for doing this stuff. So we ideate, then we give it to story threaders and they turn it into something and it actually can go viral. That sounds completely cool and it'd be fun if you linked up and we can sort of do some riffs and love to hear back from how that goes. Good. We'll come back to that. Mark Trexler, Judy Benham, then Bentley, Mark Trexler, then Kevin Jones, then Judy. Go ahead. I'm also in Portland and you're all familiar with Jerry's brain and what I've been working on for a number of years is sort of the closest equivalent to a brain that is focused on a single problem. So I'm a climate change person and to build the climate web, which is tries to be an open global mind in some ways for the climate change problem in terms of internalizing the thinking of thousands of experts and trying to figure out whether there's a way to organize information like that to make it actionable for other people in terms of getting to better climate decisions. And Mark has also maybe most expert among us for selling access to curated brains and other sorts of information resources. So anybody who's interested in those things, I think Mark, Kevin. You're muted. I just put a link in the chat to the book Color of Money. If you've all probably heard of the red lining of properties, actually the red lining of black banks was much more onerous and hidden. And so that's one reason why putting your money where your mouth is, if you believe black lives matter, can be putting it toward a black bank or a black credit union. But that book really explains the history of, because it was more hidden than real estate, it was meaner and worse. So anyway. Thank you. If you're interested, that's the book. Thank you so much. So much of us systemic racism in this country to undo still today. Judy then Bentley. Judy Vanham from Minnesota. We've caught the edge of some of the big storms like the Derrico and Iowa that's not too far away. So it's been interesting around here, but no damage. To just put it simply, I'm kind of at the interface of science, arts and open learning and trying different ways of doing that. Awesome. The three of them because science and art because of the creativity component. Yeah, that's a really fun nexus to explore as well. So we should we should do some more diving into that corner. Bentley, Jay, then Anthony. Hi, I'm Bentley Davis. My passion is building mass agreement through tools or I build tools that do that. I don't actually do it myself. And so that's very OGM me. So that's why I'm here. And right now I'm working on so many side projects. I don't I don't even know which one I want to work on next. So I'm a bit overwhelmed, but looking forward to hear what everyone else is up to. That's great. Thanks, Bentley. Jay, Anthony, then Scott. Morning, everybody from Ashland, Oregon. Give me thanks. The skies are still clear here. I run a company called Retellable, which is focuses on helping people to tell stories that last. And the idea that we've been kind of pushing, plugging away on is how to take the brain and explore how it can be a make a collection of stories and put layers on it that may be visual layers or text or some kind of combination that make compressed Retellable stories that can be a collection for a person, for an organization, for an even wider and how they can interconnect. And what that would really look like and feel like if you're going to input that yourself or be able to connect to somebody else's story. So that's the kind of highlight. And again, have created this framework called the journey curve that is kind of guide to a Retellable story. Awesome. Thank you. And I keep coming back to the idea that a meme is a Retellable story that's really, really small. And so Lauren and Charles are working a lot on memes and meme replications, so there might be an interesting bridge there. If you guys haven't already talked. And I'd throw back that I'd put a meme is the Intel finally moment of Retellable story. That sounds good. OK, because it's sort of the punch line and the and yeah, got it. Cool. Anthony Scott and Hank. Tony Marketos, Cleveland, Ohio, working on training materials for system sticking using pictures. Thank you. And I apologize for calling your Anthony. I'll I'll switch. Scott and Hank and Scott, you're still you're hunting for the mute button, I think. It's still not funny. We've lost our window. All right, let's I'll watch for you to unmute. In the meantime, Hank, then Klaus, then Neil. Yeah, good morning, everyone. Hank, I for the past week or so, I've really just been trying to have conversations with people we've met on this call. Just to push some conversations forward around really a couple of different areas. Whether it be like, you know, our principles, how we're organized, some of the little projects that we're doing and that we've been talking about. So that's where my energy's been. Awesome. Thank you. Klaus, Neil. Klaus Bend, Oregon. As to OGM, I was in a discussion. I have been in a discussion this week with with my NGO group here. And the most exciting harvest was that I have been reprimanded that I should think in terms of system and not individual watch eggs, you know, like you seem to make progress, but you have a right. That's very funny. And then Klaus and I are plotting an OGM call about the soil and the food system, which I've been slow to post and invite everybody to. So we'll we'll get that done today so that we can have that call. I think that'll be really interesting because like like education, there's a lot of interest in that nexus. So we can go there. Neil, then Scott, then Charles. Everybody, Neil Davidson out of Australia, been in Belgium in Flanders now for six months. So looking forward to catching up with Peter at some stage. Feel I've been bouncing a little bit the last week, looking in and out of discussions in discourse and various other things, but not quite knowing how to grapple with this many headed beast and where it's going. Looking forward to deepening some of those conversations. Loved looking back through the video from last week and seeing some of the things that I said, because I was a star. No, it was it's funny to see yourself when you're actually saying things. And I'm looking forward to seeing how Lauren and others here might be able to capture some of that in story thread because I can see that interface. I loved what Judy said between science, arts, open learning and in terms of putting down a brief profile, I'm a bit like myself in the same basket as Bucky, but a verb still I'm still trying to work out what I'm becoming rather than what I define myself as what I'm no longer. So forgive me. Thank you. I love that we leave our little chrysalis behind at some point and love when you participate. So it must be fun to watch yourself in some way. And you're reminding me that many of the other things that are happening to me during the week are very OGM me and I'm trying to figure out how to bring them in. So my wife is a young global leader with the World Economic Forum. Yesterday we were in a session where we were talking about rethinking democracy and I have a metric ton of stuff in my brain about rethinking democracy and all of that and including a bunch of links to the groups that do that and so forth. And I think that conversation might blossom into a separate project coming out, which I would like to bring in here and invite the people into here. Separately I have a small gig with Bio One, which is an open access science publisher, where a possible future for them is very OGM-y. But I don't know if that card is going to stay on the tracks. But I would bring them in here as well. And I think the idea of having real things to work on and people who've got projects in the world is really important to our shared mission here. Scott, is Unmute working? Yes, it is working. So Scott from Interlochen, Michigan, Interlochen, which means between the lakes. So we live on an isthmus between two very small lakes and we are protected by storms, by some strange thing. I watch them come in on the radar and they go right around the isthmus and continue on their way. It's fascinating. I actually want to find out more about that. So my being here is that I want to bring these ideas and posture to kids by teaching, thinking, meta-skills. And so a lot of this relates to what I'm trying to do and in that area and trying to bring forward the idea of doing what you can with where you are and what you have. This week I reached out to the contacts I did have who are associated with the Columbus, Ohio Hockey Association and then the Parks and Rec Department and they have a number of disadvantaged kids who are, as we bring the children back to school, they don't even have Wi-Fi. And so people are talking about how are these kids gonna learn in their excellent environments and these other kids don't have the environments to even get started. And so they're trying to create collected spaces for them where they can get access to Wi-Fi and get their assignments and that sort of thing. And I'm gonna try to participate in that space in teaching the things that I'm trying to teach, visual thinking and systems thinking at basic levels. So that was some progress this week. Thank you, Scott. And Pete and I are part of a community that has a bunch of wizards who've set up Wi-Fi around the, I mean, connections around the world. It can't be that expensive to get a decent tablet and Wi-Fi into people's hands everywhere. The problem is getting them into one space because their environments are not terrific when they're at home. So yeah, yeah. And finding those spaces and all. Thank you. Charles, Pete, Ken. Hey, everyone. Glad to be here. Greetings from Zurich, Switzerland. Lots of lakes over here too, Scott. I'm a New Yorker in California and about 10 years ago moved over here. Basically, it's all systems go with Kiko Lab or Collective Intelligence Collaboratory with Lauren Dignone, as she was mentioning. Big focus on kind of pure goji for kids, pure learning and production, infused learning parts. And one name concept we're playing with is Cool Lab or Cool Laboratory with a K. There's a telegram channel I'll share in a minute. Also, we have weekly conversations on Monday's noon Pacific of 9 p.m. Central Europe. We're building a knowledge repository as we talked about, definitely working with the conversation transcripts in a wisdom stack as we're calling it, the workflow with various components and kind of iterating all of that. Launching a new cycle of conversations starting next week. I'm taking over Lauren's been leading last month, which finished this week. And we'll do kind of overview survey of all we did since we launched in the middle of January in the same time just before the world changed. And hash pins, the hash verse, Trello mural explosions, just to give you some taste of what's coming are welcome. Thanks. Awesome, Charles. Thank you. And your educational initiatives are sort of similar to with Klaus earth and soil and food. The other nexus of things that I think are hot right now. So let's figure out, I need to figure out how better to sort of amplify what you're doing and sort of partner up a little more on that. We're coming to the discourse really soon. It's just one of those things been behind on, but we'll show up. I have this. And I'm terrible at online threaded forms, even though we put up a threaded form, I have a hard time getting around that. I think I'm sort of in the lower third with all of us on like feeling like I have my hands around what it is. And so I feel guilty because like I caused it to show up. Neil. If I can just make one quick comment on that. I'm not sure who's there. I'm not sure who's not there. I'm not sure what governance there is. I'm not sure who what's already in train. I'm not sure how we proceed. So I'm very keen to find out something in this meeting about how do I engage? How do I know when people have engaged? How do I know people deliberately not engaging? Because as I say, it's a many headed beast. I'd love to be able to assist, but I feel I'm pushing things into the dark at the moment. And it sounds like maybe during this call, we can do a little screen share and we can go back and sort of address that. Because I think that that's really important. Charles, you wanted to add to that? Just quickly tag on while I have the mic. I'm keen to catch up on the kind of tools and mapping conversations. I understand. I think Peter Kaminsky mentioned there was a recent session and I've been out of loop. So I'd love to. I had my kids on holiday until this week. So I'm more or less back catching up. Thanks. Sweet. Thank you. Pete Ken Gene. Picking up from Neil and Charles, maybe. So I feel a little bit guilty about having a discourse forum too. I go over and over it in my head. I don't think there's an easier, better way for us to do it yet. So I'm not actually particularly a fan of this whole big threaded forum thing. It's hard for me too, Jerry. I'm in the same spot. Everything you just said is exactly where my head is. But and I thought a lot about it, different tools. I don't think there's something better until we get to OGM, which is going to solve all our problems. Of course. Neil, let's maybe get together. I would love to work out with you, I think. And a little bit bigger than just me and Neil maybe. I'm looking for folks for a gardening guild. I'm calling it. People who are actually a little bit mindful about the structure and shape of OGM. And part of it is a lot of it is the whole thing is very nascent, very new. So it is unstructured. And some of us kind of ask, so where's the structure? How do I fit in? This is one of those things where we actually just have to build the structure and build it so that we can all fit in. Charles, same thing. I'd love to touch base if you'd like to sync up on how and where and things like that. So Peter Kaminski, I'm in San Diego, California. We have the heat wave in the Southwest right now. We are only, I live only a couple of miles from the coast. So it's moderated here. And the wildfires are very far away. Knock on wood. This week, I work on collaborative sense making. This week, it seems like I'm really soaked in sense making. One of the things I'm working on is a careful, thoughtful transcription of an excellent call that the Forsyte Institute had. They've got a weekly salon session. They had an amazing call with Dave Snowden and Phoebe to Tinkle talking about. Oh, wow. So the YouTube video is up now. But I'm waiting to kind of like to share the link to this group until I've got also a transcription. It turns out it's interesting. My work flow right now with transcriptions is often you can take any audio and give it to either Amazon or Google and they'll give you back text. I've been doing this for a year or two with Amazon, especially. And it's interesting how much better the transcriptions are actually getting better. Dave is obviously Welsh. Phoebe's from England someplace. So they've got an accent. And the machine is actually really good at just picking up and doing the right thing, except when it makes stupid mistakes. So my job as transcriptionist is to kind of go in and fix the stupid mistakes and make them better, better mistakes. One of the things I've found very fascinating about the process of taking a machine transcription and turning it into something that's actually correct with all the Welsh words and things like that, it is very hard to hear what somebody is actually saying when the machine has guessed a different transcription. It comes up with a more common word or something like that for an obscure word that Dave or Phoebe has used. And then listening to it and watching it, typing the transcription and seeing what the machine has typed, I actually have to delete stuff that the machine has put in incorrectly so that I can hear it. Otherwise, what I hear is what the machine ended up thinking it saw or heard. So I hope to have that transcription up soon. I will post it around. There also, in the greater OGM forum world, there's a little guild called the Free Jerry's Brain Guilds. Bentley and me and Jerry and a couple other folks are looking at the bits and bytes, the makeup, the brain, and Jerry's brain in particular, and how we might kind of tease that apart and start working on it a little bit more effectively, just the data of it. So to close, let's really dig into OGM forum. And let me help you. If you've got questions, please ping me. And the best, the way I work best is we can get on a Zoom call and do some screen sharing and work things through. Thanks. Cool. Neil, quickly? Yep. Very quickly. As an Englishman spending 50 years in Australia now learning Dutch, speaking to Americans, I understand it's very, very important to put the emphasis on the right syllable. Thank you. Absolutely. And I'm just going to put in the chat that Dave Snowden is a fascinating character at Welsh. And I've been in the room with him several times, and he tells the story that he was forced not to speak Welsh in school. And if he ever did, he had to wear a sign that said, I am a dumb taffy. So he had a hard childhood. Ken, then Gene, then Doug. Hello, everybody. Ken Homer here in Santa Fe, California, wearing long sleeve shirt for the first time in a week. The Heatway Valley broke. I am surrounded by looming orange-brown clouds from all the fires in the Bay Area. Right now, it's tolerable outside, but I may have to go in later on. It's been pretty, pretty brutal in terms of air quality. Just listening in on this call, I'm always fascinated to see what just gets revealed in all these check-ins. And someone said something about, I think it was Neil about what I'm becoming. And someone also said something about before the world changed. And those two things clicked in my mind into, I think what I'm attempting to become is an elder. And in my mind, an elder is someone who has something to contribute to the world besides their gray hair and wrinkles. They actually have some knowledge that's useful in a world that is changing. So I don't know that I can articulate in the moment what that is, but it is now a bubbling question in my mind of, how has my eldering process shifted since the advent of COVID? Love that. I'd love to know how we can amplify eldering and make it more useful, prevalent, something. Yeah. Thank you. Gene then Doug. Gene Bellinger from the Outer Banks in North Carolina. I have spent the last week endeavoring to do nothing significant and finding it extremely easy. That's it. That is awesome. Doug, Ben, Rob, then Shimon. Okay, Doug Carmichael, and I'm on the Northern California coast. We had to evacuate two days ago and watching the smoke and the flames trying to figure out whether it's getting closer to our house or not. It's reading tea leaves. It's an amazing process. Anyway, so I'm not at home. During the last week, I've been also leading some conversations at the Institute for New Economic Thinking on the amazing book by Bruno Latour called Down to Earth. And this book has touched the nerve within the Institute, which is fabulous in terms of getting people into a conversation. The key point is to give up the dimension of left, right and politics and replace it with something more adequate to the times which Bruno calls terrestrial versus global. Global is looking at the earth in differential equations and economies. Terrestrial is seeing the earth from the human and the animal up. And these two poles actually help clarify how people think about the future. Anyway, it's been an amazing experience working with this book. So it's Bruno Latour Down to Earth. Thank you, Doug. And best of luck with the fires. That's just crazy with what happens now every year. And it's not even October. Usually heavy fire season in California is October. So this is just crazy. Rob then Shimon. This is Rob O'Keefe. I'm in Bluffton, South Carolina, which is the most southern part of South Carolina almost in Georgia. And relatively new to some of these OGM calls. And actually I'm more comfortable going to the forum because I can be asynchronous. So I've appreciated having the forum, although it's kind of going through some growing pains. It's more difficult for me to break out the time for the Zoom calls. Although I would say I like seeing people and having the discussions. Just the timing of it sometimes is a challenge. I'm not necessarily working on any initiatives that are OGM related. But the book that Doug just talked about really summarizes where I'm feeling is the US political system is feeling very broken. And I think the economic system is similarly broken. So I've just really been drawn to OGM as just hearing the discussions and the dialogues and finding people that have similar ideas and maybe new ways of talking about problems that will help frame them and expand the discussion to more people. So thanks for including me. Thank you, Rob, very much. Everybody raise your hand if you've been watching the Democratic Convention. Kind of half of us. Cool, we can go back to that too. Appreciate it. Shimon? Yeah, Twitter. You're speaking and you're unmuted, but we cannot hear you. Something is still not working. Yep. Your microphone or something hasn't clicked yet. Keep trying and we'll come back when it, just keep speaking and when I hear your voice, we'll make it work. Did I miss anybody? If your Bluetooth is active to some other device that you're not connected to, that happens to be go hot. Uh-huh. Yeah, your Bluetooth might be roaming. Might be untrue. I think we got everybody else, right? Good, yeah, that was faster check-ins than before. That's good. And there were a couple of things, Shimon, while you're troubleshooting, there were a couple of things I just wanted to screen share as comments for part of the conversation. One of them is here's down to Earth, which I have not read and would like to. So there's a couple of articles. I'll post a link to this thought in my brain in our group chat in a second. And my computer is not happy. There we go. But then the other thing I wanted to point to was, and this is partly from Pete doing, I'm gonna call it a close reading of the webinar that he was part of. And I love this idea of close readings, which I think comes out of literary criticism or something, but the idea that you sort of slow down and try to pay attention to everything that's being said. And I wanted to apply it to OGM situations. So there's a fellow named Steve Strom, who's a friend, an acquaintance on Facebook mostly. And he and I were having a conversation back and forth, which I pasted into the notes field here. And so what I did was, he just poured this long paragraph. There were no paragraph breaks in it. He just sort of went for it. And he was making a conservative argument for what's broken and what's happening. So I tried to do a close reading of it in my brain. So he says things like, if not for Obama, there never would have been a Trump presidency. I'm not electing a saint. I'm electing a president. I'm not sure the old ways were working better. Nobody's been squished by Trump's pro-business policies, et cetera, et cetera. And some of these I was able to kind of to weave into other parts of my brain to talk about each kind of standalone, because these thread together into sort of logical narratives, but also something like he said, common core sucks, I think common core sucks. So we had a whole bunch of points of agreement as well. And so I'm trying to figure out, is this helpful? Cause I sent him back a link and I said, hey, I did this with your post and our conversation kind of died there. Oops, somebody needs to mute their mic, please. Oh, that could actually be Shimon who managed to make the mic work. I don't know. Oops. And without looking at the grid view, I can't tell whose voice that's coming from. I think it was, I think it was Shimon's other line. Oh, okay. Did Shimon draw the line? Shimon was on there twice. No, it was his first one, I think. Perfect. That's very likely it was happening. So anyway, this, my doing this kind of killed that conversation. So that's not good. I don't know if what I did here is useful. I'd love to know, but I'd love to try more things like this because I think listening with care, which I think is what I'm doing here, and there's probably some bias in my doing it, I don't know, but listening with care is a way of opening up conversations like this. And I think that conversations like this are a way to sort of bridge the cultural divide in many ways. So let me just stop sharing for a second and see what anybody thinks about that. Can you hear me? Yes, Shimon, we can hear you just fine. Can I do my introduction? Please, do your check-in. Do your check-in. Glad you solved it. Well, again, I'm rather new to the groups. I'm delighted to be here. I'm calling from outside of Philadelphia. Actually, it's been 80 degrees and sunny. It's actually beautiful. I already did my two mile walk around the community here. What I've been focusing on this week, in addition to trying to sort of like learn more about Jerry's brain and the climate brain, I did the brain 101 trying to understand it and just sort of getting acquainted with that. But my main focus now is trying to put together what I call the Citizens' Commission to study COVID-19 with the target date of release September 17th, which is Constitution Day. My thoughts are that as someone mentioned, we're sort of going through a very challenging democratically, like threatening period of time. And many people refer to the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Constitution did not come with a user's guide. And what I'm trying to do is use the medical model, which as a physician and as educators, I'm very familiar with, to contextualize and provide a framework for having conversation on challenging issues. So what I'm trying to do is doing the Citizens' Commission, which is a framework like a medical conference to address the data, the various options, differential diagnosis, and a way forward to deal with the issues that COVID-19 has exposed in our democracy and otherwise. And Shimona, I'm posting a link to one of the links, you sent me to your Citizens' Commission's work into our chat so that people can take a look. Thank you. Let me back up then to the question I asked a moment ago about Steve Stroum's post and how that works and what to do and how to do it better and all that. And I put a link to that thought in my brain directly in the chat as well, so anybody can go browse it more if they want. Any comments or thoughts? Neil. Just a rather brutal one, so what, right? And so we do this, but what's the context? Where does it go to do what with it? If there are individual points to the contestable or provable, what does the synthesis? What does it aim towards? What is the overarching intention of the capture of that in slow form? So the so what, as I say, sounds brutal, but and now what or what next? And how would we use this and for what purpose to do what for whom? Where it sounds like the sort of work that Shimon is trying to do is to say, how do we reframe the discussion to make it apolitical? But as soon as you do that, it's becoming political because half the people don't want to hear it. So, you know, so what? Lovely question. And fortunately, I have a pretty thick skin, but I don't think that was that brutal question. Anyway, so part of it is that I think that pulling apart the arguments somebody is making can take you back toward the places where you agree and you can realize that you agree on something. It can also take you back into assumptions that are behind things and then you can discuss the assumptions and that might take a really long time. It might be that somebody believes that pretty much nobody can be trusted. I mean, in my brain, I have a point of view from me and I think people are born good and connected to the universe. It's a completely legitimate and deep philosophical and literary thing to think that people are born evil, just look up original sin or whatever and that there's some flaw we're sort of trying to make up for and that forms the basis of a whole bunch of logic. So part of what I wanna try to do with this is get to those conversations in a peaceful way so that we can kind of kick those things around and figure out what's behind the presentation issues because the presentation issues are often just surface fodder for something that's way deeper. And if possible, how did you start thinking this and what's going on? And all of that can happen in private, in this weird little brain thing or in future OGM or whatever. And that to me is already kind of useful because it's two people figuring things out and those arguments might be more useful and because I've annotated them or curated them in my brain, maybe it's useful to other people stumbling across it. If we were holding that conversation in semi-public one of the reasons I love Twitter is that two famous people can talk and everybody who follows each of them and all the retweets and all that wind up seeing the conversation. So if we get more attention for it then a private intimate conversation where we're going deep and we build some kind of relationship and trust can actually be visible and touch many, many more people and that's interesting to me. So right now it's just me and my brain and like one fellow on Facebook who stopped the conversation after that and it's like, damn. But the potential here is to do this more slowly because we're in this sort of vendetta vindictive vigilante society where judgments are called very quickly, people are dismissed and it's like off with their heads and it's like, can we slow things down a little bit to hear each other better and then go into the sub parts of the conversation that make up the whole argument. And then I have a possibly naive belief that walking through those things and doing those things will soften up our differences and might help us reach sort of more interesting agreements. So that's kind of my so what answer. Does that address some of the things you're thinking about? Okay, Mark, then back to Neil. Yeah, just a slightly different take, Jerry, on what you're doing with it in your brain. The way I find that useful in your brain and what you do the same with a lot in the climate web, you know, there's just, for example, there's tons of great videos out there that some really brilliant videos, which no one, who watches an hour long YouTube video anymore? I mean, for all practical purposes, almost nobody except- We're outliers, we're outliers. I know. A few people that just raised their hand. But what I have done for a lot of those videos is actually extracted the key points, not so much as an argumentative issue or a bridging issue, but then linking those points into other places in the climate web, which in effect can bring people back to that video. So people that have no idea that video exists will find that video because it's linked to in a whole bunch of places in the climate web. And I would see the same thing being with your brain. If you take some of those points and they get linked around your brain, then people can find their way back to that conversation and they might find it very interesting to see sort of the synthesis of that conversation as opposed to just thinking of it from the standpoint of, well, here's the synthesis and let's, maybe it helps us bridge gaps. Totally agreed. Neil, then Doug. Just picking up on something I said last week, which connected to what Klaus was saying, generating a document as a strange attractor is writing in one particular way, telling the story and seeing who comes to it. Secondly, playing with people in real time, real space is an art form, which other people will see how it's being done. So if we treat it every social media engagement as an auditioning for those who aren't necessarily in the conversation. And so the reason I'm here is that Ken saw me having conversations in a way that he's thought, hey, this guy might be worthwhile having in our circle. So I think, again, depends on what you're trying to achieve. There's different ways of doing this. I loved Jerry that when you gave your answer, you mentioned also, I've also got my personal take on this, that I believe that all people are useful, all people are good, all people are connected, et cetera. When you bring in your own context, not just the transcript of somebody else's conversation, then you're stating, this is who I am. And unless you state and show up as who you are, how can we become whole? And if we can't become whole, how can we cohere? And if we can't cohere, how can we build coherence? I love that. And then also partly what was said earlier about transcribing Zoom calls and turning them into Miroboards and the different angles we're sort of taking on this, I was reminded of James Baldwin's incredible Oxford debate. If anybody's watched it, it's on YouTube, of course. And it's just mind-blowing. It's in an era where civil rights was very hot. We weren't anywhere near where we are today and thinking about these issues. And he is clear and beautiful and compelling. And I would love to enrich that somehow, not to track them up, but to enrich it in the same sort of way. It's like, how might I take apart what he says in that speech and annotate it in a way that it connects up, that it makes a whole. So taking what to me is a famous speech and improving it in some way. So trying to do that. If anybody's not seen or read or heard any James Baldwin, please do not pass, go, do not collect $200. Doug. Okay, I'd like to try a piece of tight argument and see what we could do with it. The argument is that we must cut CO2 use fairly rapidly now or the earth is just gonna get too hot and we die. The problem with cutting CO2 now is it means cutting economic activity, which is gonna unemployed a lot of people. So we're in a real jam and nobody's willing to take it on. So they talk about, let's cut CO2 use by 30% by 2030. But okay, what are you gonna do next week? Nobody has a plan. And I think the consequences of cutting CO2 now are so shocking that people aren't willing to go there. So a couple of things on that Doug. One, I'm kind of at the point, but not quite where I can share my brain as my background by using virtual cams. And one of my goals, and I'll do this on a future OGM call is to be, what I wanna do is kind of be a gorilla in other people's Zoom meetings where I'm basically curating the web during the meeting and anybody can opt to pin me and watch me do that and then unpin me and go back to the meeting as opposed to I take over the screen by screen sharing and everybody must watch what I'm doing here. And I say that because for the argument you just made, what I would kind of love to have been doing in that kind of a scenario is I would just sort of go to that place in my brain, connect things and walk through it and kind of talk about it and elaborate it in that space. And part of the reason why I'm not quite there is that my machine slows to a crawl when I start doing that because I'm running too many different pieces of software. And also the brain has this really annoying habit of trying to sync to the server every 10 minutes or less. And so every time I think I'm about to do something and it's gonna look really cool, everything just kind of freezes on screen. So I would like, and to me the place I would immediately start on your argument is switching to reducing carbon is going to un-employ a lot of people. I think it's going to re-employ a whole bunch of people and create a whole bunch of new employment. I heard Al Gore give a speech, I was 10 feet from Al Gore, almost 10 years ago. And the first thing out of his mouth is I don't know why I can't convince conservatives that going green is an economic boon, like electrification, like this is a huge opportunity to employ a whole bunch of people and make a bunch of money. And I don't understand why conservatives don't like that or get that. So I would connect what you just said to that argument and I would build up from there, et cetera, et cetera. But now I'll go quiet because I wanna know what anybody else's reaction to what you just said is. Klaus. And then Jay. Yeah, I'm really stuck on the idea that reducing CO2 outputs by converting the energy systems is going to get us anywhere near a solution. I mean, for several years now it has been obvious that we need to sequester carbon out of the atmosphere because we are already in overshoot. Now the carbon budget is gone. We're flying way beyond it. And even if we were to achieve the IPCC targets, the reduced carbon output by 2030 cutting it into half, which now we would have to probably cut it by 60% because we have been consuming the remaining available budget, it's not going to solve the problem. There's already too much up there. So we have to look at land use, agriculture and general land use to first of all, stop emitting carbon because it currently contributes over 25% of total emissions and reverse that and make it a carbon sink. And by doing that, it will also, it will create a transformation within the economy. I mean, the food system is a major employer. It's the largest employer in many countries. So the entire future of food security, environmental stability and so on really hinges on what are we doing with soil? And so that is still not in the debate. I mean, I'm still seeing like the citizen climate lobby. They have a big conference this Saturday and it's completely focused on the energy systems. It's no discussion about agriculture, land use and so on. So two quick notes before I go to Jay. Sorry, Jay, just one second. One is just so everybody has like handy thing in your pocket. In the industrialization of agriculture kind of happens between the US Civil War and the First World War. At the Civil War, 80% of us are making food or farming, ranching, doing whatever, 80% of us buy the Civil War that number plunges to 20%. Everybody goes to factories mostly and to offices and so forth. And today that number is 1.5%. A very tiny number of Americans are actually producing all of our food, which doesn't need to be that way. Just like industrialization kind of took us there. And then the second thing is I think a part of what our conversation here is is not to solve the question that Doug just asked, but to talk about how to OGM that question. Like let's go a little bit meta on the subject and say what would work to have this argument better? Cause this is an argument that could eat the rest of our call and I'd like us to go back to sort of OGM conversations. It's a great question you pose Doug, but I'd love to be a little bit meta about this. Jay then Doug. So we're in this context, I think it's very important to include this context of cancel culture and this idea that it's really, it's such a time of kind of like this black hole where so much is getting canceled broken. And it's easier to remove something when you have thousands of people attacking it to push it away. And we're kind of getting the leadership from the top on that of how to remove things. And the question that I'm working with is how do you, what does creation culture look like? And how can you orient from, okay, I understand a lot of things are broken about our society have been for a long, for thousands of years you could say. And how do we orient into a future? How do we leverage the capacity of all of the people in OGM, all of the data and information and actions and the brain and leverage it and connect it with the heart, which is something that actually brings us into a feeling of the future, a way that we can align and maybe a reality experiment that changes a part of the future or a part of this reality because we need somewhere to hope towards. And so this is kind of my meta expression of this is that leveraging story, data, actions, information, AI into a future that could work might also help to aggregate some attention, which is a big problem because we can talk all we want about watching our long videos, but unless people have a real reason, we're just gonna keep slapping memes and canceling things. And Jay, I just wanna thank you right now for a moment because I've never sat and thought about an antidote to cancel culture and creation culture is a lovely starting point for that thought. I'm sitting here going, oh, right, crap. Why don't we sort of propose that? And then I'll add that cancel culture, vigilantism, whatever it might be, I think would be a really interesting nexus for us to chew on together and to figure out what to do there and where it might go. Cause it's clearly a major sort of linchpin in how do we move forward through the place we're in. So thank you for what you just offered. Do you wanna respond? One more word, just I'm a little over my head on this, but I wanna put the word hologram out there because I think that some kind of refracting of a possible different world and the kind of version earth that we can see, touch, taste. I think that various inputs you're talking about with the story threading is interesting. So just putting that out there. I love that, thank you, Jerry. Doug, then Scott. Okay, so I completely agree about OGMing the question. And I brought it up as an example that we can OGM a little bit about maybe. So what I noticed was in your response, basically it neuters the question because it says you don't have to worry about that. There's a solution. So if, how the OGM comes back at that point and retitans the question is to me a very interesting problem. So you said neuters the question and what I was trying to do was approach the question and say you made a bunch of arguments that led to a conclusion. The argument I would focus on first is, hey, that's going to unemployment a lot of people. I'm not sure that, I don't know what you mean by neuters. Because my view is that there is no plan for how to employ all those people that would be unemployed. For example, because those jobs would use a tremendous amount of energy. They're all style jobs. So I think that they're off the table right away. So I think your rejoiner does not do what you thought it did. But if we let it stand, then my question kind of becomes impotent. Well, no, because you've just done, I feel a little bit like Vazzini sitting at the table in The Princess Bride. But you've just done what I would hope that this process would turn into, which is, but no, your claim is actually wrong because, and we could follow that down a couple layers. I think that'd be great. And the notion that there is no plan to employ people in this new way is dead on, but we're in an administration that doesn't make plans like that, doesn't believe in the problem. And we may soon be in a different kind of administration. And then raising the question of how do you make a new job that is greener than old-style jobs is a great question to tackle. And I think that that turns into a really productive inquiry from there. So Scott and Mark, thank you for that. So we've been dancing around this and this is something I wanted to touch on. So this last week, I typically am optimistic and I found some stuff and went down a dark path. So the idea of romanticizing dystopia. So I've heard a number of us talk about, in another way, the opposite of that. And what I found was an article that had talked about how over the last several decades, dystopic novels, dystopic movies, artwork, that's been kind of on the rise. And is it following the culture or is it leading the culture? And I think you can kind of debate that, but does it have an alternative? In other words, is there another vision? And that's sort of what I hear from a lot of you is, well, let's put something out there that shows that not in a Pollyanna utopian kind of way, but actually here's a viable alternative path. So I just wanted to put that out there. Thank you. And I think that sort of brings us right back to storytelling as well. Like how do we create narratives that are compelling that people want to connect to and pick up and go execute on? Go ahead, Mark. For me, the idea of OGM is how to get past sort of the 101 conversations that are based on sort of the information that we have in our own heads. And so just taking the example of the conversation that Doug started, there's a massive literature on that topic and on what one can do about green jobs and can we hit the targets. People have spent millions of hours thinking about these questions and is it energy? Is it agriculture? How much is agriculture? Do we need to argue about which one is more important? For me, OGM and what I've been trying to do is to say, okay, what if we could access all of the people's best thinking on those issues? Not in an argumentative way, but just to be able to use an open global mind to find out what is the best thinking on these topics so that we can get to the 303 and 404 conversations really easily as opposed to just being stuck all the time in the 101 conversations. I love that. I completely agree. Spent most of the last 15 years doing communications for like the climate and clean energy space and green job space. And it felt like the logic argument that had been pieced together to really tell the story of climate change. The scientific causal loop logic line was becoming really clear in early 2000 and then it had inconvenient truth and it had Hurricane Katrina kind of push it into an emotional level, but it was extremely well laid out at that point. I feel like since that time it has degraded and we could track that, but I think it's been kind of agonizing to watch it degrade and some people have taken off to the 404 conversation while other people have gone back and argued baselessly points that are way farther down the tree like, oh, it's not anthropogenic carbon. Oh, it's actually solar flares, so on and so forth or the data is wrong or the models are wrong and people have been gone and picked apart arguments that we thought those who have followed the logic are now having to defend stuff that they've forgotten how to defend. That, you know, so the part of like, I think, you know, what would be useful from an OGM standpoint is like, I've been really wanting to build the climate argument tree that is replete with evidence around each particular claim so that we can return to it the way that Jerry returns to his brain, we could return to it collectively to like an immune system to snuff out these baseless arguments about things that are far down the logic and we can maintain the conversation at a social and political level at the 303, at the 404 and have much more informed conversations. So that just mentioned that, that is being created right now by the Society Library, a nonprofit. They have thousands of pro-con arguments up and down, climate change, I'll see if I can find a link. Please, that'd be great. And I just wanted to add a couple of things, building on what Mark just said and Max just said, which is one of my big insights from using the brain for 22 years is that we are an amnesic civilization. Some of you have heard this riff before, but because we don't have a place to share what we know, we keep having the same arguments over and over and over again and people who are trying to create the fog of war and spin us know that and so they're constantly repeating, you know, and there's something called the Bellman's fallacy that comes out of Lewis Carroll. Anything I say three times is true. And so we're in the post-truth era, partly because we don't have any truth we can thin down, not that I necessarily believe in truth of the capital T. But part of the reason for suggesting we do five in universities on books and part of the reason for me weaving the brain for a long time into the best materials I can find on everything else. And same thing with Mark Trexler is that there is a bunch of stuff that people have sort of negotiated and researched and done before and some of the research can be undermined by argument, but at least it's there. And once we've done that work, we can then go back and say, hey, we have that conversation already. We don't need to repeat it. We agreed on X, right? And that eliminates one of the different sort of rabbit holes that are easy to start sort of going down when we get into these kinds of situations. So a huge goal here is to harness what people know and what people have posted and published and make it more accessible. And then as I mentioned, Bio One, which is a project I'm working on, they have scholarly works. They have basically biology and ecology research papers that they provide access to, which are in biology and ecology research paper language. And one of the things that we're working on is how to make those more accessible to audiences, to stakeholder groups that normally don't get to use this, that normally can't reach that level or aren't clued into the scientific way of expression. So how does that work? How do you build bridges there? And I think that's interesting too, because there's a whole bunch of people out there doing this. And then one final thought, in terms of the future of energy and the future of everything, there's a whole bunch of really interesting thinkers from Brad Templeton to 100 others that I've got in my brain, but I don't have them curated next to each other. I'm thinking I should do that, who are expressing as best they can, a really strong point of view about what to do next, right? They're saying like, this is impossible, so we must do this. And it's everything from terraforming to regenerative agriculture, to whatever else. How do we get to a better version of that set of comparisons and arguments so that we can turn that into policy, so we can turn that into individual actions and so forth? Kevin. Just one point on the 101 to 401. I've been accused by a lot of folks because I make these new financial instruments for neighborhood-scale justice, and I get accused of being way too geeky about it. And I'm with this thing of banking block, I've found a 101 way to make it simple that everybody can do something and not burden them with all the other machinery behind it. So if you're a 401 person, you gotta find a, I can explain to my app, that kind of thing. So anyway, that's new for me to be less complicated. So if we do this right, it works a little bit like a pattern language, which means we distill a whole bunch of wisdom in some domain and it boils down to something that normal people can remember and repeat. So when I say we could do that, but it would break light from two walls. And if you're familiar with a pattern language, light from two walls means a room to feel inviting and livable should have natural light from at least two walls. It's not a rule, it's not a design constraint. It's a rule of thumb that says this tends to make rooms feel more livable. And so light from two walls is civilian language for a bunch of interesting research and complicated stuff. And that's one of the reason why I love pattern languages is that they managed to make these things communicable. Now we have the power where the pattern language can rely on the kinds of stunning videos that people are doing and like the mix of media is much richer and more interesting. So we could point to the best of those to communicate what hopefully becomes a really simple thing. So one of my watch words for fertility, nutrition, et cetera is mind the soil. Like soil fertility, if you pay attention to soil fertility, lots of other good things tumble and they fall in the right direction. And then metaphorically, if you use soil fertility and regenerative agriculture in other settings, that also works really well because you start picking things that are reasonable for an analog to soil fertility. So I agree with entirely with what you just said, Kevin. It has to be, we can't have everybody have to go do the 404 course. We've got to find ways of convincingly connecting to the 404 research, but back into really simple bylines and words to watch. I mean, my favorite boiling down of design from trust is assume good intent, assume good faith. And I'm borrowing that from open source and from other movements. Like that is a really, really, really good starting point for design from trust. And trying to communicate that is not simple. Anyone else on this? It's hard to find a 404 class. That's true too. Neil. Just picking up on the communicate from trust. There's also a need though to discern with whom you are connecting. And so in the metaphor that's used very well by Matt and Gail Taylor, they talk about the collars and the collars that connect the pieces of a spaceship. The design of each piece can be different, provided it fits inside an aerodynamic envelope and it weighs the right amount. It can leave the Earth's atmosphere. But once it's in space, it must have a one size fits all connection to join with anything else. Otherwise you can't get onto the space station. You can't go anywhere else. But the critical element of a meta constitutional process of what are the rules we will play by means that I can identify that that piece of spaceship coming towards me isn't carrying a pathology, isn't carrying an enemy, isn't carrying something that's going to do me harm. So the trustworthiness needs to be communicated in advance of the connection. And so there's a really critical element here because part of the auditioning that we do on social media is to demonstrate I am trustworthy. I'm bringing good information in good way on treating people nicely. I'm not gonna bite your head off, et cetera, et cetera. But what are the rules by which we engage and how do we engage others? Some of whom may not respect those rules. So the boundary conditions for accepting another piece of spaceship into my connection is threatening to me. And the COVID bubbles are an example of what's happening at the moment. How can I trust that you haven't been with other people that are infected? So I think there's an element here of not just the, without being rude, the naive perception that I trust you in advance. How can I know or feel more comfortable that I can trust you in advance? And that means stating what I'm here for authentically. So bubbling involves trust agreements because our family and your family agree that we have not done whatever, gone and kissed people in prisons or something. Exactly. But also, I love what you're saying about the connectors and how to create a universal connectors, but we're in a moment where there's intentional undermining of those connectors and of this thing. I call this denial of discourse attacks. And weirdly, it's happening on both sides of the political spectrum where cancel culture, arguably, is a form of denial of discourse attack that is being pitched on the right as look what the tolerant people are doing, they're being intolerant. And then we have the fog of war and all kinds of interesting stuff I'm happy to talk more about on the far right about how do we break down discourse and trust so that nobody knows whom to trust, so that everybody's kind of anchorless and we'll seize whatever narrative pleases them, which would be ours, perhaps, right? So I think that there's a whole bunch of that happening and it also happens in business. I mean, I would love for there to be product comparison trees where I can say, I wanna buy a one generation older digital camera that's kind of like this one, what's the competitive set? I can't find that product tree because no company wants their products easily compared to everybody else's. So they'll do whatever they can to break somebody's efforts to do that, right? Nobody wants perfect competition. It doesn't actually exist in most places. So we'll all tweak and break the system as much as we can so that we're not easily comparable so that nobody will find out that our product is generally inferior and a little more expensive. And so everybody buys my competitors thing. So I'll do anything I can to undermine the proper connectors and the proper comparisons. If that makes sense, Bentley, go ahead. I was just saying, that's one of the projects I'm working on with a group of people is an open source crowd sourced product and politician comparison system. Seriously, that's awesome. Yeah, so if anyone wants to contribute or participate, let me know. Love that, Seven Eves is awesome. It's a great book. Did you read Aurora by Kim Stanley Robinson too? So I kind of read both within a couple months of each other and they're both about surviving in space during an apocalypse and very different from each other. Yeah. Other thoughts on this? Jay. So if a meme, just going with that idea, if a meme is the Intel finally moment of a story, which I kind of view as the Intel finally is the insight that comes after the innermost cave, the kind of place of mystery and then leads us to the ever since then vision or the distinct change. If the meme is the Intel finally, I think that the place where data fits in and where all of these different territories we're talking about fit in is that part of the challenge is dovetailing stories. So it's kind of dovetailing Intel finally moments. So we might all have a slightly different innermost cave or a deep challenge or mystery that we're in or a problem that we're trying to solve. But if we can look at it from a story perspective and see how all of these different stories add up into a greater story and dovetail from a data perspective, I mean, consider climate change, all of these problems that lead into a similar Intel finally moment. I feel like we're kind of, we're getting to a way of layering these challenges together. Do you want to riff on that a little bit longer? Yeah, I wonder if I could share my screen for 30 seconds and just give me a... Let me make you co-host, sorry. Boop. I wish that that were easily done by just clicking on your image. Where'd you go? There you are. Boop. That's good. Oh, good. Oh, that's right. I don't have to do it. You see the journey curve there? Yes. Okay, so, you know, they'll kind of once upon a time then one day, because of that, because of that, this is kind of where all the information goes. Here's the innermost cave. The innermost cave is the place of mystery. It's the great garbage compactor in Star Wars. It's the place where we're totally lost. This is the COVID time. This is that we have no idea. This is also the, you know, it's just the lost place. So kind of trying to get from here to the until finally moment. What I just keep coming back to is that I might have my own climate change story or my own method or way that I came to moving to Ashland and trying to create local systems and working with story into mythology. And I might have my own story, but the question is where does everybody else's story land? So if we're looking at dovetailing journey curves, it means your story of how you are working to address climate change might be here and another one is here, but the until finally moment, which we haven't yet agreed upon is the key. And so the question is, and this is the same with organizations and cultures, how can you put these stories together and to gain momentum so you can get to that kind of ever since then, which might either be the vision or the just changed state ever since then, we aligned on what a technology would look like to build into the future. So I just wanna kind of flag that, that the place between here, the innermost cave and the until finally moment is not just one vision or one idea, it's a thousand ideas and a thousand visions that build into a story. And I think that's part of the challenge in cultivating ground-up mythology. Jay, thank you. And Klaus is just posting about presencing in the chat and I'm realizing that this looks a lot like theory you, but I don't know that anybody's compared the two. Jay, are you familiar with all the theory you? No. Neal or Klaus, would you like to do a brief thing on that? And Jay, if you wanna unshare the screen. Yep. Klaus, would you like to go? Yeah, I think my background is in large scale project management. And so I look at theory you as a project management system. And so the core of theory you is that you can solve problems with people who don't fully understand what is the problem, right? So you go through the curve down to find a common reality which is fully understood by all participants before you start solving, right? And oftentimes, most of the time, we see a problem, we envision a solution without having gone through this curve of the iceberg model, the discovery process. So where we all fully understand the systemic relations of this problem, particularly in social change. And with theory you as a social change management system before we then go into a process of crystallizing at which point we envision a future, not yet a solution but we envision a future which we are targeting against before we then move into a process of prototyping ideas and solutions at a 50, 60% stage of completion. Meaning that we are prototyping with the understanding of continuous adaptation and continued development. So in a nutshell, that's how I understand theory you. And before passing it to Neil, a piece of theory you that stands out to me and I hope I'm not misinterpreting is that the bottom of the you involves a lot of introspection and vulnerability. And presencing is about being present and has a lot to do with hearing other people and things like that. And it's so as opposed to other sort of maybe more mechanistic or more analytic kind of approaches toward figuring out a future. This is very much about going inside the person and showing up as a person and so forth. And it's remarkable to me how much traction this has gotten in corporate circles. So one of the things that I admire about auto-sharmer in this whole theory is that it has so much corporate traction because it does have that angle that seems to me to be mostly like we would provoke allergic reactions in most corporations. And this one works. This one seems to go. Go ahead, Neil. Yeah, just picking up on that. Well done, Claude Clauss. There's another element to this too, which is that the flip side of the right side up you is the upside down you, which is absencing. And when you absence, you're deliberately avoiding those other voices. You're deliberately not listening to coherent thought. You're deliberately not being present with what's happening. You're ignoring the facts. You're ignoring the people. You're shouting down your political opponents. And so when you go down through the you, you're letting go of the voice of judgment, the voice of fear, and the voice of cynicism. And so the hero's journey, I have to go through this fear to get to this difficult place. Depending on how deep you go individually or collectively, you're getting into a more spiritual realm of actually letting go of all those things which have made you what you are, have created who you are, and you're in the cave. So this is where it ties in with what you've been saying here, Jay, about going into the cave on the hero's journey. When you come back out again, you're open to what is coming up in the room, not just what was I already thinking. I've let go of that. And now what? How do I do that? And I'm involved with a couple of circles here in Belgium involved in collective presencing and collective alchemy. And the collective alchemy is burning off the dross that we're all carrying through intergenerational grief, racism, you name it, all those other things. The collective presencing is what is it when we all tap into source? And it recognizes both the individual and the universal in the grief and the things we're carrying. So individually, we can point to people and say, I'm pretty sure you're here on the curve, but they can resist that if they absence it. So how do you show up trustworthily? How do you bring vulnerability? How do you bring authenticity? And if you can't be trusted to walk with somebody on that journey, then they're not going to go there. And so creating the conditions, creating the soil, the compost, the safe conditions for vulnerability is critical to how you come out of it. Because if you've still got all the baggage that you were carrying when you went in, you're not going to come out with a better solution. And I'll just add that burning off those other layers is a task all by itself and a gigantic challenge. Yeah. I mean, the systemic racism, et cetera, et cetera, all those things are deeply embedded and have to do with identity, membership, a variety of other things. So getting to the place where people can have that conversation doesn't require getting rid of bias and racism, but man, those things are certainly in the way. But the process facilitates hearing people well at that place. We're getting close to sort of 90 minutes. I think we should probably close at 90 minutes. I was interested in taking a piece of our conversation today and tackling something that a couple of you had mentioned in the edits, in the comments to the story threader proposal. I'll just pose it here and we can come back to it either in the forums or in our next call. And that was, I'm realizing that all of you are doing a really good job of broadening the scope of what this means or the context in which story threading might happen. Story threading was meant to be kind of a compliment to graphic facilitation. But then I realized, okay, at events, there's 15 different roles you might need. Maven is another great role and Pete is one of the world's great mavens. I'm sure he's in the six sigmas off the mean. And for me, I always tell people that in the encyclopedia where the entry for Maven is, there should be a little dot picture of you in the margin. And so that's another role that events need. But then I'm like, no, no, wait, this isn't just about events and meetings. This is about everyday work. So in some sense, story threading ought also to be a part of our everyday lives. Like, hey, we're at a moment where we're all kind of, maybe we're at the bottom of the storytelling trough. We're in the depths of the cave or at the bottom of the fear of you. And we could use some rifts on where we are as part of nourishing our introspection on it. And maybe that's when we call this in. But I was interested in a joint exercise to kind of map that space a little bit. And I have this realistic understanding that no corporation is going to hire all of those roles at any time. Like nobody's gonna spend that much money because a lot of these roles require somebody who understands how to do it, to coach people through it or to do the action or to riff artistically on the situation. But that having that moment, having the resources available and letting people know that all this stuff is doable and getting more people trained up in all of these roles in any organization I think will be beneficial to all the organizations because people can then pick up the roles and do these things as we think together. Because mostly it's a rush of PowerPoint attachments to emails, things lost in SharePoint, emails that pile up, now Slack that piles up. Everybody's just sort of drowning in the info flood trying to keep their head above water doing too many Zoom meetings now in lockdown. Can we offer a way to make sense of the world a little bit better by helping by adding some of these roles to help make better sense and tell different stories. And I like, I haven't thought through story threading connected to Jay's theory of storytelling or to theory you and so forth. I think those are super interesting. So there's a lot of avenues to go into all that. Let me pause for a second, see if anybody has any first thoughts on that. Judy, go ahead, you're muted. Come back to me, because I had an extension of the thought. Cool, Pete. I'm reminded of something I thought of after Lauren's call about education. We talked to, my breakout group talked about learning pods and the proliferation of learning pods as a reaction to thinking that we ought to send kids back to school en masse. So one of the things I started to think about was if you help people understand kind of the standardized learning pod and maybe standardized varieties of learning pods and then talk about how those learning pods might interact with each other. So we talked about learning pods with advantage, lots of rich, probably white kids and learning pods with disadvantage. Once you can kind of standardize the idea of learning pods then you can talk to people about let's connect an advantaged one with a disadvantaged one. So I think there's a lot of value in just kind of, you end up creating kind of an idea marketplace when you can start to put labels and pattern language structures around different things. So maybe you have a learning pod and there's a teacher or a mentor or two and you want them to be intergenerational and once you can kind of describe that in a pattern language, then people have adjacent possibles to those things that they can talk about and then people can interact with kind of a standardized set of things. So I think that's really important. So I like your idea of roles. I like your idea of clustering roles and talking more about them and making essentially a pattern language of roles too. Thank you. Judy, do you want to jump back in and your meter's still, there you go. Good. The thought that I've been struggling with in a constructive sort of way over the last few weeks is how to go from ideation to action and whether the repositories of the content are the same because the knowledge content of OGB doesn't really provide executional paths from knowledge points. And it seems to me that the sense of today is we need to take action on a lot of these things and we need to find distributive ways to do that and to engage people to do that. And maybe there's a way to frame a specific discussion around that dimension and even to begin to actualize the implementation steps to get to some of those. I come from a science background and everything is an experiment. Even the best experiment is going to lead to another one that improves it. And so it seems to me that it's important for us to start experimenting somehow. Whether each of us picks one example in our community and says, well, I'm going to take this concept to this organization or group of people and report back on what happens. And I know we're not the whole executors but as part of sort of fine tuning the process that others could use, maybe that would be helpful. Go ahead, Klaus and Neil. Yeah, it's just in an interesting phase in this discussion group that involves Dr. Dustin or so NGOs, I mentioned before, it's the Sunrise Movement, Friends of the Earth and so on. And what happens to the group is that they realized, and this is where I was saying when the idea of systems thinking occurred to the group, they are realizing that they are working on so many projects, so many different things without having an overarching understanding where the destination is. So in the absence of knowing where you want to go, they're wondering. And so while I agree that there are multitudes of projects that are all well-meaning and useful and hopeful and constructive, there needs to be a common direction. There needs to be some sort of a designed outcome or an agreed upon destination where we want to go to. And so that's what I was hoping to stimulate as a discussion in the food and agriculture focused workshop that we're talking about. Where are we going with this thing? Because it makes a huge difference in the political process, in the way that legislation is being drafted and formed. And a lot of groups are working on that. But they're working on piecemeal things which are often contradicting each other, fighting each other without even being aware of each other. So that's my thing. Agreed, thank you. Neil? Thanks, class. Looking at the comments and the thread as well, an emergent outcome. It's not about having one destination, but it is about having a bunch of destinations you don't want to go to. And so how do you refine that direction? If we're putting our energies going the wrong direction, and this is why I said before, so what or why? Or, you know, so if we know that these things don't work, why do we keep going there? Now, in the big questions discussion on discourse, and this is why I'm interested to know where that's at, I've been asking these questions about how do we get to emergent outcomes? In the point that Judy was making, how do we get to operational outcomes on the ground? The diagrams I'm posting are around Eric Jancz and others in the centering of systems. So an operational outcome, you can have a guy who drives a coal truck and his operational outcome is to not kill anybody on the day and drive 55 trucks that get loaded onto a train that go to a coal tanker that go overseas to get burned, right? And he can say, I went home, yes, I've ethically committed to doing my job every day, and yet he might also lie awake at night knowing that he's destroying his grandchildren's future, right? And so the challenge here is how do you go up the line to the point of downward causation of what are the norms and ethics that we're aiming towards? And the question I'm asking in that question is, what are the overarching norms and ethics for OGM? Where do you want to point to the direction of OGM? Because all of the information you've got can be used for good or evil, right? Can be used for improving or taking away from? Can be used to justify or not the work that's being done? And so the question becomes, how do we show that we are aligned, coherent, heading towards life giving, soil creating, regenerative processes, as opposed to just for our individual business outcomes or selling something, right? So how do we get to that higher level of systematic? That's the conversation I'm trying to have. I'm not sure yet how many have seen that or haven't engaged and haven't engaged, but that's the point I'm trying to make there is not to direct OGM, but to ask the question, how do we collectively agree on the direction of OGM within which all operational outcomes are potentially viable provided? They don't go too far in a direction we know is not good for the planet. So the emergent outcome is within boundaries because we don't want to go there because. And half the things I hear being spoken about here are intergenerational grief, intergenerational racism, systemic collapse, et cetera, et cetera. These are things we know are happening. On our watch, they probably won't be solved. What's the best we can do in the time available with the people here, the tools available and the gifts we've got already in the online global mind? And just to riff on what you said, Neil, which I love, what is the simplest way we can explain to people actions they can each take that head in the right direction that basically create incremental improvements or transformative improvements but so that our every actions basically are leading toward the better outcomes, even if we can't decide what the big picture might be. And so those are easy to pick up, Ken. I know we're getting long in the tooth here on the meeting, so just really quickly. Michael Mead is a storyteller, a mythologist and leader that I've done a lot of study with over the last 20, 30 years. And he tells the story of an initiation process where he was buried in the earth up to his neck at a 45 degree angle. And after freaking out, he calmed down and he said, I can actually feel the earth orbiting in space, I could feel the whole planet moving. And I quieted my mind and the planet started to speak to me and said, you know, you have something to do here. You have a job to do. And I'm really intrigued. I think, you know, we're talking from a very modern Western tradition here. And I think there's a whole world of indigenous knowledge of initiation rights that connect us to the planet that we are missing here. So open global mind also needs to have that open global body of if my body comes out of the earth and goes back to the earth, then how do I walk around in this body in a way that preserves that tradition, that pattern language, that standing wave of human bodies from now until as long as grass grows and rivers flow? Wow. And one of the really lovely conversations that came out of my, this Bio1 project I'm involved in, they were really interested in indigenous communities and working with indigenous communities and science. And the beginning of that was, how do we make the science more accessible to indigenous communities? But where that conversation evolved was, how do we make that a two-way street so that science is affected by indigenous wisdom and ways of being? And one of the things we proposed that came out of that conversation that I thought was just the gem was, what if scientists approach their work with reverence? Reverence for the subjects, reverence for the work, reverence for the planet, like reverence, right? Which is a piece of ritual. And that would color how science is done. That would I think shift a whole bunch of things in science. And that was a really interesting thing. It was like, how could scientists be permeable to indigenous ways of thinking? Because they, and there's a speaker, I've got a Tadex talk where they say, I don't call it an indigenous system, I call it indigenous science because it was one heart the same way. And through tens of thousands of years of experimentation, repetition, storytelling, like that's how we got this stuff, right? So I think there's a lot there. People learn the hard way what plants are safe to eat, you know? And that's part of that amnesia culture that we have. We don't know what plants are safe. We can identify a thousand brand icons, right? But go out on the forest, how many people know what's, what's edible? It's like, don't eat that. Joe Bob did not make it like to the next day. Right. Cool. I think we should probably, yes, I didn't progress, you just... Cat this call there. Thank you all. This has been really, really nourishing. And I think it's given us all some ideas about what to do. Pete, if you do any tours of the discourse boards, if you can record them and if at the end you're like, that was actually pretty good. Lots of people could see it if you could share that back so that you don't have to repeat it for many different people, that'd be awesome. Because I think we need to do some more orienting into the discourse. And I'm in exactly the same place Pete said earlier, which is, man, it's messy, man, it's hard to get your arms around. I don't know what better to do and I don't want another Slack channel, et cetera. Neil? Are you ready? A quick check in before we check out. I'm just wondering, can we each talk to each other just very quickly now and say what it is we're gonna do next? I understand that Pete's going to contact me. I know Hank's trying to talk with me. I'm not sure if anybody else wants to talk with me. I think Charles and I are trying to catch up. So there's potentially three separate conversations. There could be one conversation, I don't know. But just a little bit of self-organization before we leave, I think could give us an action step between now and next meeting. But yeah, is that worth while doing Judy? Yeah, good. That sounds great. Judy, you're muted. Yeah, I would like if we could wrap up with an action step. That was one of my other ideas that I didn't wanna say it in the middle of the discussion because I think it helps focus us on what we're gonna do in the next week that's related to this particular project. Sounds awesome, I love that. And if anybody also wants to contribute that in the chat, that will speed up our process through it. I intend to have myself buried up to the neck in the earth like soon, although that may be difficult to arrange, especially the rescue part may be really hard to arrange. I wouldn't wish for that at the moment if I were you, Jerry. Good point, good point. So partly what I wanna do is go into the forums with Pete and whoever and just try to figure out, can we get our arms around this so it feels more productive and so that the five questions Neil asked early on are easily answered. So we can figure our way around it and turn it into a more productive thing. He was gonna help me with discourse and maybe if you can let me know when you're gonna have a conversation or a tutorial about that. Would tomorrow work and is there time or should we catch up asynchronously on that? Maybe catch up asynchronously. Tomorrow's not bad. I think the afternoon is better than the morning. Let me just take a quick look. Yeah, the afternoon's wide open. Cool. So I think you have each other's emails or there's the OGM list. You can say whoever would like, how about this time or something like that. Anybody else wanna jump in with what you'd like to do, Klaus? Yeah, Jerry, can you help me structure the invitation to the Monday meeting? Yes, that's in fact top of mind. So let's get that done today. Is this a different Monday meeting than the... This is a separate call from the KikoLab call. Yes, this is basically an OGM out of the Thursday morning calls. It's just a separate OGM call to focus on soil fertility, earth agriculture, and CRU. Okay, a separate OGM call from the one that's normally on Monday. So it won't be at the same time, right? Exactly, we will not pick that time. I think we've already picked a time. I'll check my calendar in a second. Who else would like to check in? Or check out, rather. Anybody else have a thing that you'd like to do by next time or? I'm trying to take all of the work we've done in the how to process this storyboarding and other approaches into a couple of nonprofits that I'm working with, just to sort of pilot it and see how people respond. That sounds wonderful. Anybody who wants to bring your projects into OGM and say, hey, want brainstorming, help, whatever, please do. This is a great place for real work. Anyone else, Pete? I was curious, it's just about the overall tools and mapping convo and sessions and what's the status, and it's gonna continue. So we had one hoedown, and I don't know if I should repeat the hoedown and we just bring more tools into it or if we should change the format and do something different. I think we need to, there's a couple of people who've compiled large documents, like there was a nice notion document that had a really, really long list of tools. I don't think we need to duplicate those things if we could re-instrument them. That would be great to have a list of tools in an OGM-y kind of tool would be fantastic. Is that in the forum or where could I find that, for example, or other clusters of this stuff? Let's do a guild around that. I don't know often what to call it. Out of the Free Jerry's Brain guild, Leonard Lynn, who hasn't been on one of these calls, but is a part of the Free Jerry's Brain group. I live in Tokyo. He has started a wiki, actually, a wiki of knowledge tools. And I think that's a good, maybe focal point for starting to dump stuff in. We could have some calls around that. I think I would fork that off into a smaller little guild thing. And I have a huge body of those in my brain so we can sort of meld all those things. While I'm unmuted, Foresight Institute is wrapping up this salon series. Last week was the Sense Making one. They're doing a wrap-up. It's about, they call it a eukatastrophe. How can we make a better world out of the climate crisis? They're having a wrap-up call in a little over two hours, two hours and 20 minutes. I will send out the Zoom link to the OGM email list. Thank you, that's great. Any other thoughts, things that we want to do? Neil. I've had a quick flick read of the story-threading document that was circulated on Google Docs. Are you happy for us to add things in there or augment that as we go forward, yeah? Yes, please. And I need to go back into the document and sort of broaden the scope. The thing I dropped in this conversation sort of at the end, like what does that space look like? I think that needs to be present in there somehow as well. And that's part of the question I was asking before is how do we coordinate? I'm not sure, Pete, I'm not meant to drop you in this, but if Pete's the one that can take video snippets and put them against bits and pieces in that document, then we've actually got some good spoken words to potentially go with the document that might be, again, just story-threading with visuals. And the story-threading document. And I can't do the technical, and I don't want to necessarily go and rewrite the document, but I do want to bring bits in, but if they're already available, why would I do it again? So it's that, where am I? Several things, and then I'll pass it to Charles. I'm happy, and I should probably do a screen cast explaining story-threading better and sort of highlighting some of the examples and all that that's on my list of to-dos. I would also love to do that with anybody in Zoom, and we can just record that and post that as opposed to me just sort of doing one, and we could just ask questions and have a conversation around it and do some screen sharing, and that could work really well. So I think that that's easy to do, so I'd love to do that with you. Go ahead, Charles. Just to say that Lauren Ninon in particular, we're also Robert Best working with Miro more recently and earlier Lauren was doing it with Kaggle, a mind-mapping tool, and it just comes to my kind of embedding videos into maps essentially, but I think Miro seems to be quite good for that. Miro seems like it's really good, and then yesterday I was trying to make some changes in a Miro board, and I was completely frustrated because I can use Prezi, I can use Google Slides or PowerPoint or whatever, and I can do the graphics. I just could not move crap around. It was really frustrating me. So I need to get better at it, or it needs to get simpler or something like that. I'm in the same boat myself, but yeah. Alas, and I'm a Prezi lover, so I was able to do the kinds of stuff that people are doing in Miro without enough zoom ability or path declaration. I've been doing for years and years in Prezi very happily, but Prezi has not caught on the same way Miro has. I think there's a value, Prezi's in Miro and things like that. It's really cool to have a rich canvas that you can splat stuff onto, and then I think it's still, you almost need a walkthrough of it. So I think there's value in just having a flat video of logcast of here's a tour through Jerry's brain instead of here's Jerry's brain. And I also think that part of OGM's mission is to digest things like Miro, Prezi, all these kinds of ways of juxtaposing graphics and ideas and nodes and diving in, diving out, Notion, Coda, all those sorts of tools and offering at least a perspective on them, like what are they good for, what are they bad for? But maybe synthesizing something out of them that creates a more expressive medium. I love the term, Arthur Brock talks about expressive capacity. And I love the idea that our tools give us a certain kind of expressive capacity. Autodesks, AutoCAD, for example, I heard the story, this may be apocryphal, but there are a whole bunch of buildings in Hong Kong, maybe in China that basically look like the default drawing for a high-rise in AutoCAD because they pirated AutoCAD. They were like, oh, this looks pretty good. Let's build that. And so the limits of the tool and the default drawing in the tool became buildings in a particular place. And then also early CAD applications basically limited the kinds of interesting things people could do with buildings. So a whole bunch of buildings designed in that era lack features that we now think of as commonplace. So maybe we're in the same kind of spot with these sorts of tools to allow ourselves to cruise around places and make sense of the world in different ways. And I think information architecture is really important here too. And I think we may need to add that to the list of skills that are needed. Neil? Just a very quick funny. I sent a graphic to Ken recently and it was an architecture of buildings and things all stacked up. And in the bottom right-hand corner was one weak little point. And it was said some system developed 20 years ago still being maintained by some old guy in Nebraska. And the whole stack is built up on top of this thing which falls over, bang. So I'm assuming some information architecture and some good foundations could be useful. Smells like the Genesis block and blockchain. Who knows? Scott? I just heard a story from my wife. She works at an aviation company. They have floppy disks to update the Boeing jets because the system is still set up and every week they go in and put the new navigation data in using a floppy disk. Sounds crazy. It's fascinating. The number of cobalt systems, salarine systems and all that is probably would shock all of us. Any last words before we wrap this call? Thank you all. This has been, like my mind is a buzz and need to get busy and do some of it to do things. Judy, thank you for getting us on track to check out with what we're gonna do. Let's do more of that. So we need to reserve some time toward the end of our calls to just sit in that process. And we also, I also need to coach us more to do that during the call, to think about, okay, how does this turn into something I can do and bring back to the group? So thank you all. Thanks everybody. Take care. See you next week. Okay. Thank you.