 morning. Hello. Hi. Hello. Just waiting for my coffee to finish brewing. Nice. What is your preferred technology? For brewing coffee? Yes, exactly. A currig or, well, this one's not a currig, but it operates the same way. You know, my currig broke and I've had a lot that have broken over the year. I drink them a lot and I buy the different sizes. But this was so cheap that I got online that I said, even if it doesn't last, it's worth it to buy it. It was like under $40 and it's just May. So it's lasted and I'd rather buy a new one. I mean, it's sad, but. That's great. Hey, Leif. Hello there. Greetings from Sweden. Nice to see you on Thursday. Yes. This is great. It's the day of the God of Thunderstorms tour. Tour and what happens on the day of the God of Thunderstorms? Is there a celebration? Do people go out on the streets and enjoy the rain or? No, the thunderstorms, a lot of sound, etc. It's coming from when Tour was driving his car or carriage and made a lot of noise. Because he hadn't rounded the wheels properly? I mean, was it poor design or was it just the mass of the chariot? It was just such a. Yes. And the hammering on the horses. Love that. Hey, Pete. I haven't met Leif. No. Hello. I don't know who you are. Who are you? Who am I? I'm Stacy and I come here just to see what's going on and what I could add to the conversation. So if I know who you are, then I know where I might be able to fit in better. Well, I'm intrigued by the mapping done by and through Jerry. So I'm very excited to see what new maps might emerge from our conversation. It's triggering his mapping and my focus is on finding the positive maps of the future. And I can help a little bit by showing you Leif in my brain. He, in fact, he was named Brain of the Year a few years ago, which is done by the Brain Trust Charity in the UK, which is run, I guess, by Tony Bazin. Yeah. Unfortunately, he died one and a half year ago. Got it. And so Leif, here's the book on National Intellectual Capital, Corporate Longitude, what you need to know to navigate the knowledge economy from 2002. And he and Hank Kuhn and I have been collaborating a lot on positive cartography, etc., etc. He's forming a thing called the New Club of Paris or has formed, I guess, 2006, which is doing a bunch of interesting work, which is kind of based on the 1956 Club of Paris, which was worried about renegotiating sovereign debt back in the day. And then I just went to Tour. Is that the right pronunciation? Tour. Yes. The dude we call a four. Yeah. So a donor and thunder, the word for thunder in German is Dona, D-O-N-N-E-R, etc., so it comes from Thor. Here's Thor from Marvel Comics, which is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Here's MCU and Stan Lee. Somewhere in here, I've got more of the superheroes. And then back to Thor, the element Thorium is named after him. And then his equivalent over in Hindu mythology is Devendra or Indra. And Indra is very interestingly sort of connected to Indra's net, which is one of the more ancient motivating, I mean, if a lot of us are motivated by Vannevar Bush's essay or Doug Engelbart's mother of all demos, we should also be likewise motivated by Indra's net, which is this idea of a set of jewels set in a net where each jewel reflects all the other jewels. It's kind of this holographic vision of knowledge, of weaving a new fabric. Almost like your net. Almost like, well, we're kind of aiming for this, right? And so I have it, I have all these different visions connected under in a thought called visions that have inspired builders of global brains. So here's the the Magister Ludi, the Glass Bead Game, Engelbart's Mother of All Demos, Vannevar Bush's Memex, the Noosphere from Teilhard de Chardin, and this idea of Rhizomes from Deleuze and Gattari. Where's Ted Nelson? Gattari and Deleuze. That should be here as well, wasn't it? What did I do? So Ted Nelson would be hypertext with what's my shortcut to Ted? Sorry, as we may think, right? As we will think is his version of that essay. Yeah. Let me go to Ted. Let me find... You got Ted Mad about the web there. Yeah, exactly. Good point. Well put. It's also got computer lib, right? And computer lib, right? Exactly. Yeah, I think Pasaplex is his best, most recent book for anyone looking to study his ideas. Cool. Yeah. And Eric, you've gone deep into Zigzag, which I'd love to hear about. Sure. And I've got a shrink wrapped copy of computer lib still. Nice. And why is computer lib not in my brain? That's very weird. It's a brain fart. You have an unwrapped one that you've read here, I hope. Yeah, there's one that's actually in a box and storage at this point, but... Yeah, they tried selling them for a thousand bucks a book. Perfect. Wow. They should actually issue them as NFTs. That might actually... Yeah, that might be good. That's probably... It's down to a hundred now. They could probably fund Xanadu entirely from an NFT appreciation over time. If anybody wants to find the best link for computer lib, I will add that to my brain and then add it to that thought, because it's totally correct. What's interesting about computer lib, there is a PDF version online that's illegal that Ted knows about. So if you could find the PDF version, you could read it, but you shouldn't. We could read it. You have any good map? Jerry, do you have any good map of the work from Douglas Engelmarch? Of course. Yes, Sam Hahn's the expert on that. Also Eugene Eric Kim, who is a lovely friend of the network and who I haven't talked to about coming in and joining these conversations and should. Great to have him. Yeah. Thanks Pete for the computer lib dream machines link. That's perfect. So welcome everybody. We are on the alternate week, which means let's find a topic to talk about. Eric in the calls channel online on MetaMost. I had to remember three different things there. Mentioned that we could talk about what do we think of as success. And I asked just a second ago, I sort of wrote in, do you mean personally or do you mean for OGM, etc? It's a lovely question. They're tied together. Okay, good. So the blend of them, I like that. And then I was thinking of an interesting topic we could talk about, which is Facebook has just declared the metaverse as the future of their company, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. I'd love just sort of opinions on the metaverse thing. That would be an interesting topic as well. Like, what do we mean metaverse? And is there a version of a metaverse that might actually be interesting and succeed, etc? Because I think that the conversation that Facebook's shining a big light on the metaverse has opened is an opportunity for things that we care about. But we could pick that. Any other topics anybody would like to put on the floor? There being no actual floor here. But I got I got three, which is obviously too many. But let me just share them. One is that I've been reading David Graber's new book, The Dawn of Everything, which is stunning and deeply important. One reviewer compared it to Galileo and Darwin, which I think is not a huge overreach. But maybe we'll wait till people have read that. So let me just throw that into the mix. Second, y'all just muttered about NFTs. I think it's a point of conversation about NFTs and value and bullshit and so forth. And third was the third. It was just now. Kripes. You can do it. It'll come to you. Everybody? I'm trying to reinsert the thought back in your brain. My living between worlds webinar last week was focused on critical four letter words. We talked about hope and fear. We didn't get to plan. And I think it would actually be interesting to have a conversation here about plans and planning. This comes up because Doug Carmichael and a couple of other people have said to me, so where the fuck is the climate plan? Why isn't there a plan? There's this huge crisis, why isn't there a plan? And there are actually a lot of plans. There's a conversation we had about plans and planning. And how do you plan in a mess, which is very different than planning a project to build something. So that angle on it feels pretty OGM-y. You can actually rephrase it and say, how do you make a map when you are in a storm? Yeah. And why would you? How do you navigate in a storm with no map? And the people who say, wait a minute, we need a plan may not be the people to listen to at that point. But yeah, thank you for the storm metaphor. My friend, Sean C. Bell, is fierce about this. He decries the notions of problems and solving. So as soon as you say problem, people think solution. And solution is fine for discrete problems, but not for messes. Bow to Ted Nelson, inter twingled, complex, well, what we're in, where you cannot find discrete solutions. Everything's connected to everything else. You've got technical and social and political and many different dimensions, not conducive to neat and tidy plans. What do you do? Dwight Eisenhower, not only twice president, but also the architect of the D-Day invasion is famous for saying, planning is critically important. Plans are worthless. So his quote is actually right there. Can I get it backwards? Well, yes. And a little bit off. So I said plans are worthless. Planning is invaluable. And then I think it's Winston. Yep. Winston says, plans are of little importance, but planning is essential, probably with a cigar in his mouth. Yep. And a whiskiness on the other hand. Yeah. He had a bedroom in the bunker where they did all the planning where he would wake up at, I don't know, 11 in the morning or something like that. He was hard to get up in the morning. Doug. And it wants him to get out of the bed. Yeah, exactly. No, he used to do a lot of calls and meetings, I think, from bed. He was a strange character. One of the things I loved about binge-watching The Crown was the parts that involved Winston and just seeing the dramatization of a different angle on his life was really, really interesting. Let's get it. Okay. When I say where's the plan, I think what I meant was we have goals. But if there's not some statement of first steps, having a goal is totally useless. And we have no concrete plan that I'm aware of for how to start actually cutting the use of fossil fuels at a level that's consistent with the problem we're facing. Thank you and agree. And two things. One, I'm on a sciency mailing list that has a bunch of people who know way too much about this stuff. And it's not that this is a heated list with lots of disagreements. It's that there are just so many options flying that it's kind of amazing. And then I don't remember if it's this list or a different list, but Amory Lovens is on one of those lists and is replying to questions about nuclear, the future of nuclear energy, just with an incredible depth of detail and knowledge about how and what and the knock-on effects and the actual costs and the this and the that. And it's just like crazy interesting. But all of which has me sort of realizing what a tangle, what to do is because, you know, well, if you think Amory is pushing nuclear, there's nothing in that play. No, the opposite. The opposite. Okay. Well, he's he's basically saying nuclear doesn't pan out at any scale in any way. He's been pretty consistently for 40 some odd years. Yeah. Yeah. And people are trying to raise nuclear guns. And he can he can show you the receipts. The problem with nuclear is you could put a major effort into it, but the oil companies keep pumping the oil. Yeah. So where Doug and I disagree is that I think there are lots of plants. I see lots of plans. I see tons of plans coming across my desk, latest one from Bloomberg this morning. There's not an agreement on a plan. But, you know, part of the deal here is that every sector and every company and every city is going to have to have their own plan. It's going to be within a framework that has some commonality and sharing and common goals and so forth. But you're, you know, I want to push back here. When you say we don't have a plan, who is we? Jerry, I think we found our topic. Who is we and what is the venue for the plan being made the plan? Okay, so I'm not I don't want to say plan. I want to say first steps. In all the proposals, none of them say where we actually start cutting CO2 emissions at scale. Yeah. And I can I just ask about choosing the topic? Is this the chosen topic now? Because it's already going off on this topic. And I thought we were talking about what topic that's correct race. Thank you. Thank you very much. And if you'd like to put a topic on the table, feel free. No, I just want to check in and say I haven't been in for a few weeks just because I was on another project and now that that scheduled call has changed and I'll be here a little more regularly and I'm glad to be back. We are happy to see you. Thank you. But it could be that the whole concept of plan and planning is becoming obsolete. And what is the so to say replacing paradigm of that old way of thinking? So two things on that. One is that just last night, so I've been story threading. I've been prototyping story threading for Unfinished 21, which is happening right now this week, virtual conference in Romania. And I'd last after wait, is that yes? Was that a yes that this is the topic? No, that was not a yes. Because we did it again. I'm just pointing it out. We did it again. We started talking about this topic, which is fine, but I just want to make sure that we all chose that topic. Yeah. And I'm unfortunately taking us into a digression that's not necessary. It is about the topic, but it's actually about story threading. I just wanted to share this with the group and then come back in and ask for some consensus on the topic. So if you'll, if you'll permit me a minute and a half here. So there was a session from the conference that I got to listen to ahead of time between Virginie Resson, who cares a lot about climate change. And one of the things that was that she says in this interview is basically that we don't have a new story. We don't have a consistent story. And I wanted to offer story versus plan. And she said basically that a unified direction for addressing climate change hasn't been defined. And I connected that back up to a TED talk that I mentioned here, maybe last week, maybe before, which is one of my now favorites. Actually, I mentioned it on these calls that I've connected to the thought. And this is George Monbiot's, the new political story that could change everything. And he talks about how what we need is a new story to replace the old story. And we don't have one. And I'll just pause there. And then also, my better half has written a book about flux that basically says we are in a world of constant flux that's only going to get faster. What we need to do is manage in the middle of chaos. And Doug, do you have your hand up again? Or would you like to put your hand down for a bit? I'll put it down. Okay. Thank you. So, so at this point, would someone like to offer either a favorite among the topics we've been talking about, or a synthesis of some of the topics that we could talk about? Somebody recap the topics we've talked about. We've been, I've been trying to not take them in the chat. So, plans, planning, the worthlessness of planning, planning regarding climate change. I'm curious on the flux. You have to consult with your wife or can you give us some kind of short resume? I know way too much about it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, let me, let me recap the topics and then I can do a brief thing on flux because then I can share my screen. So, Gil, I think that goes right back up to this comment about hope and fear that we didn't get the plan. So, critical four letter words. Then you also mentioned NFTs and value and bullshit. Eric brought up what do we think of as success individually and collectively. Gil mentioned Graeber's posthumous book, The Dawn of Everything. I brought up the metaverse and I think that's it for the topics we have on hand. Put one in the chat. It combines some of them. So, planning, who is we, flux for steps all in one. Can we state that as a short sentence? Like who are we to plan in flux? No, but those first, those first, the who is we defines how those other things are, like the flux is the state. The who is we is the perspective that we need to use when we're looking at the planning and how do we take the first steps. Anybody else? Julian, you have your hand up. Sorry, you are still muted. Yeah, there you go. Okay. Yeah, I was hoping to take a couple of minutes to talk about this conference I was at last week because it was truly in the spirit of OGM and it was really wonderful. It's called DENT. Do you want to just take a minute and report it on it? Okay. So, the DENT comes from Steven Jobs saying DENT the universe. If you're not putting the DENT in the universe, then what are you doing? And this, it was wonderful. I thought I've been an interdisciplinary person for decades and this conference was absolutely interdisciplinary, starting off from the first session being a class on how to cook Chili's New Mexico style. Going on to this place called Meow Wolf, which is a sort of themed attraction. They have a few of them around the US. Each one has a different focus. This one was about going through all these rooms full of bric-a-brac, but all of them very carefully advised to give you clues as to solving the mystery. But then when we got seriously off the first session on Monday morning was the former head of disguise for the CIA, talking about stories and the relationship to magic, followed by a guy who has a company that makes a robot that goes into operating rooms and sterilizes the hell out of them using various kinds of spectrum of lights. Let's see. There were a bunch of people talking about how they succeeded in life, the kind of mindset that they had in order to get things done. Going on to sessions about how does the division between right and left brains and how that affects everything they're doing and kind of upsetting some of the classical right brain, left brain, left prejudices. And then Valerie Plame, who was a CIA secret agent who was outed by the White House in 2003, I think, was one of the speakers talking about how you reinvent your life when you are forcibly and unwillingly thrust into the situation. Like Monica Lewinsky did. Yeah. Let's see. One person talking about using horses as therapy for people, because horses, it turns out, the genus is 56 million years old, so it's obviously got a lot of systems defect. My friend Jerry Ellsworth was talking about the kind of life she had in inventing and inventing and trying things out and eventually founding Tilt 5, which you can look upon the web. It's an augmented reality gaming experience. And then various sessions on, let's see, motivation. One of them, the one that I went to was by a guy who worked for Duncan Yoyos and spent 20 years traveling to elementary schools in her city and motivating kids to through the use of Yoyos, showing them that spinning little blob of wood actually can do tricks and teaching them how to do it. One of the capitals of the week was what they called PowerPoint karaoke. And this was where you had to come up with the most outlandish PowerPoint presentation you could think of and then present the entire thing as if it was a serious business proposition. The week was just all over the place. There was a theme to it. I'd say the theme this year was reinvention, but I loved it and I wanted to bring it up because in OGM we talk a lot about mixing ideas from different areas. And this conference to me was just about an epitome of that concept of mixing ideas. And this was the dent put on by Jason Preston and Steve Broback in Sun Valley and was it virtual or face-to-face? No, it was in Santa Fe and it was in person and they were very hard-headedly checking back cards. And that's the right dent because there's a different dent as well. It's descended from the same conference, but this is the 2021 version of it. Yeah, there's a dent on Clubhouse which is not this. Right. And I've got a different dent. Julian, thank you for that reporting. Yeah, can I ask a quick question, Julian? Yeah, please. If you had kind of one takeaway from the conference for you, what was it? A re... I've long felt that interdisciplinary research and development is the way that we really get problem solved. And this conference was an absolute reinforcement of that. Another question is, was Alan Webber there? No, he says, you know, mayor of Santa Fe, of the city of Santa Fe. No, there weren't any politicians there. But he was also the founder of... Sorry, what was... He was founder of the Fast Company magazine, an earlier Harvard Business Review. He has traveled all the way from the academic and Boston culture to Santa Fe, political culture. After your... It is a prior speaker and attendee. Leif, you did bring up... One thing I forgot to mention was a long chat with Anne-Marie. I'd have to look up her last name. Water? I'd have to check. I don't remember, but she's an anthropologist, especially Santa Fe one. I'm focusing on destruction of societies in Africa. And I was talking to her about my theories of describing history using graph databases. And that was a really thrilling chat, finding even more very cross-disciplinary connections. Very cool. Thank you for that, for that report, and Julian. And also thank you for your injection of enthusiasm about that, and its OGM-iness and so forth. It's lovely. And I strongly agree about interdisciplinarity, and which is connected to diversity and a bunch of other issues. Yeah, so a piece of what we're talking about is collective problem solving in some sense. And that may be an over-generalization of why is there no plan or what are our next steps for climate change? And we'll go back to Stacey's reframing, planning who is we, flux first steps. How do we state our conversation? We don't need to be really precise, but... Jerry, I actually liked... You went through it really quick, but as we were talking about plans versus stories, and then you said there was this great TED Talk. To me, there was a topic in there that actually hasn't been fully expressed, and then you leap to flux. And to me, that... And I'm losing track of what it was, but I remember for me, that was like, that's the topic. That's the topic I want to discuss. But I forgot how you framed it. So a piece of it that I think is close to what you're saying is that we don't have a new story, and that the stories are kind of what carries through different eras. Thank you. And I'm happy to have... Yeah, to me, it's more about like, whether we're talking about a plan or story or whatever, what is this new story that we're aiming that we need to start telling ourselves in order to create the solutions in new ways? Right? To me, something about that for me is at the core. That's what I want to talk about. Would you write that in the chat, please? Or if anybody else took that sentence down. That sounds really good to me. Anybody else? And here's the word story in that sentence I think is carrying the freight of plans and planning and of steps and of things like that. I might have a little bit of input on that. We have an implicit thinking of planning as a linear process, but it's definitely not. And it's very much a longitude process, which means that it's a third dimension. And we don't train that in traditional managerial education. Hardly in any other education as well. But a little bit in math, a little bit in physics. And in astronomy, we can perhaps see that the spaceship is navigating with this kind of third dimension. So I would like to add longitude as a keyword to the OGM. And long longitude, I'm not sure that's a clear word for all of us. I think that's the problem. Because you're using it metaphorically. Can you say a little more about it? No, no, it's it's much deeper than that. You have altitude and latitude. But the longitude is in between. And that implies that it's the third dimension, which needs a lot of training in your perception to see the third dimension. And also to put numbers to it. And that's why it's very, very important to learn to develop the metrics for the longitude. So it's related to the rotation of the Earth. Okay, let's let's hold that thought in the conversation. I want to do a brief thing, which is share screen and just go back to flux because it's related now to our conversation. So one of the assumptions behind April's book is that we are in the world is in flux. We are in a state of flux. And one of the assertions she makes, which I'm not fully on board with is that we are the world is like never if we think right now is fast, it's just going to keep getting faster. And I'm a believer in sort of punctuated equilibrium, which is that periodically we go through these states of change. And then we wind up in another kind of stasis or a kind of set of things, norms and whatever else that last for a long time. But in her book, she came up with these eight flux superpowers. And I'll go through them quickly because you'll see that they're pretty related. So run slower, slow your pace, stop the usual thing about must keep up, must run faster. See what's invisible, which means look at the periphery, which means integrate other things, which is a little bit the interdisciplinarity, although I'm not sure she goes there. Get lost, which is like, don't, you know, don't stay on the path, go find other places, go trip into other other kinds of things. Start with trust, which builds a lot on my work and mentions my work in the chapter, but sort of assume good intent and build from there. Start to realize when you have enough, not that you are enough, but when you have enough, what is enoughness, which relates a lot to the stories and narratives that we have going about consumerism that mean we can never have enough, which is part of the reason why we're eating the earth and polluting the earth. Create a portfolio career, which is less related here. Be all the more human, which means let's actually be human with each other. And then let go of the future, which has a lot to do with plans and planning. And she goes into that some here. But the idea of, if you thought you had a plan, guess what? It's a little bit like Mike Tyson's quote, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face. And I also want to bring up here just briefly because it's really relevant in Dave Snowden's CanEvan framework, that the way you deal with a complicated setting is really different from how you deal with a complex setting. In a complicated setting, experts can help you and you basically want to let the experts diagnose the problem, pick among the different solutions, and then implement that. In a complex setting, experts will screw you up more often than they'll help you probably. And you actually want to, I think probe sense and respond was the alignment of things, by which he says, create a lot of experiments, see what works, and then keep working toward what's working. And that's really interesting because I think we may be needing to adapt a planning mode that is a distributed, diverse, closely inter-twingled, meaning inter-reported and collaborative set of ways of working our way forward in this mess. Also because the climate problem is a big thorny hairball of lots of different issues. Gil, we are not hearing you. Yes, because I was going to be, I'm sorry, too many, but not enough fingers. Mike Tyson, yeah, echoes of George Patton, you know, resonates with Dwight Eisenhower. Patton, Tyson had a plan. In fact, he had a plan to condition himself to be strong and agile and resilient, be able to take punch, have reflexes, emotional fortitude to not freak out when he's gone. He basically cultivated the capacity to be in the ring and be effective. That was the plan, not the plan for what do I do when I get hit on the left side of my head that's too specific. So there's different layers of planning. And I put in the chat noted to Doug that, you know, California is 40 years into an energy plan, one might say, trajectory that's focused on the principles of efficiency, renewables, and electrification as the priorities stacked and decades of policies, funding measures, and so forth in support of that general plan and direction. So my question is, why is that not a plan? And if we get into that discussion, so the general question is, there's layers, or maybe that's not the right word, there's sort of dimensions of plans from highly general framing to very specific tactical, and we maybe get messed up in there a bit. And entities, the scale of governments need to do things like that and need to figure out where they're going to apply resources, budget, how they're going to reconfigure themselves. In Germany, there's the energy vendor, which is like, you know, how do we move toward green? There's lots of governments that have been out leading with different flavors of plans. I think partly our conversation is that, why isn't there a more unified plan? Are we, are we wishing that that's a different question? That's a very different question. That's an important one. Geron's work comes to mind here, and we can get into that, well, if we get into this topic, but how do you have independent action in the coordinated direction? Yeah, thanks Gil. Leif? Well, I think as I touched upon it earlier, the issue is the plan. And therefore, we have to get out of that paradigm and start to see another way of addressing this situation, and also another taxonomy to describe it, and furthermore, another metrics to measure it, because we are measuring the wrong stuff, and we are talking about the wrong stuff, and then we try to get the plan as a kind of navigational tool when it's full storm out there. Anybody else? And Gil, if you want to put your hand down, unless you're stepping back in the queue. Well, I want to say again that what I am interested in is the fact that we have plans or goals, things like that, we have no first steps. So to cut fossil fuel use by 50% by 2035 does not tell us who has to do something this week or the rest of this year to meet that goal. And partly the problem is that people do not want to say the obvious, and that is the cutting fossil fuels is going to ricochet throughout the economy. It's going to unemployed people stop businesses and have cascading effects that are very dangerous, and nobody wants to go there, but we have to go there. I think we're kind of at this strange moment where really big things need to happen, and all the big things are going to have repercussions, and they're going to have some modestly predictable repercussions, and they're going to have a whole bunch of unintended consequences and other kinds of things that are going to bounce through the system. And we don't have a particularly good way of seeing which of those are actually happening, which of those are not, talking through the implications and connecting with the affected parties, changing plans that are backfiring. I see lots of people saying, no, we have to do this, no, we have to do this, but we're not working on figuring out how to coordinate those attempts so that we can work better on the ones that are actually working when we discover them and backwards. And then to layer complexity onto that, exponential change, the first couple of dots don't look like exponential change. So in the early going, it'll be really hard to tell which of these things are actually working, or which is the runaway iron filing problem that dissolves all the oxygen in the oceans or something like that, that we could be well along on the wrong process before we know to rein it in. Grace, over to you. So I wanted to relate to this story thing. And as we're talking about plans and stories, and I guess, going back to David Graber a little bit, what is the story that's in place that is so pervasive that people can't talk outside of it? And that story is the story of money and finances, right? Like saying about that, like when you say resources and money, it's like this resources thing, right? And the project that I've been working on the last few weeks that I wasn't here is this thing with this blockchain thing where they're talking about impact claims. And how do we translate things like carbon credits into, you know, a monetary value? And we're so stuck in this story of value being measured by something called money, and that somehow we could like equivalent everything out. And it's very bizarre. And I've been really stuck in this story. People like the story, like for example, when people talk about communism and capitalism, they talk about the means of production, right? The means of production in the hands of, well, who's the hands of poo, right? And I'm like, you know, when I think about the means of production, I'm like, I've got a uterus and nobody can take that means of production for me. Like I can produce people, well, not anymore, but at one point I produced some people. But it's like this craziness, right? This craziness, like if you had to measure the value of the people I produce, like is that negative or positive? I mean, they've got a carbon footprint, but you know, whatever they serve their country or they did this or they did that, like, it's insane. It's just insane. And again, this feminist economics, it's insane because it's all like, we're going to, we're going to use this one thing called money. And it doesn't even matter if we call it money or whatever. And that's going to measure everything. And it's just dramatically crazy. It's a crazy story. There's no, and one of the examples I give is mentoring, like people come to me and they want mentoring, right? Or they want to do a free consultation. I give a lot of free consultations because I love talking to people. And they're like, well, what do you get in return? And I'm like, well, at this point in my life, I get the satisfaction of knowing somebody won't make the same mistake I already made. And that's it. That's the exchange. I got a fair trade. They listened to my advice. That was it. And you know, I might have saved them. I mean, there's cases where I know I've saved people millions. And it's like, yeah, but it was fair. And so it's just, you know, our new story has to include a very different paradigm for what's meaningful, right? What's meaningful. And it's like Star Trek World is kind of the closest we get to that. But there's something like about what's meaningful. And what does it mean to be a human being? And what are the things we want to look at? And how do we measure like the things that I think we need to measure are more like flows? Like what are the upward spirals? In what direction are things going? It's not, did we reach this carbon emission? It's like, is this particular location in the upwards, downwards spiral? Is this person? Is this society? Yeah, Paul Craftle, right? It's like this, we need to be measuring the motion of things towards vitality, which is a very different measure. And we don't really know how to do it. So a couple of things just to get a little more precision for me. Were you just, were you saying that feminist economics is overly obsessed with money and measure, money as a measurement of everything? Am I connecting those two? Yeah, in some ways, yes. And, you know, just the word triggers you. It's like, what's feminist economic? Well, like, what does that mean? Right? Like, yeah, it's too triggered on. Yeah. And there's things you, the reason, I heard Heather Heinz say this, and the reason that the things that are measured are so masculine in monetary terms is that if you measure the feminine things, you corrupt them, right? Look, my mommy has more mommy points. Look, I got some free sex. Like, you know, like, you corrupt them immediately by measuring them. That hug was worth. So it's not like some, they're incommensurate. Yeah, it just, you can't measure like, oh, my mom loved me more than your mom loved you. So this is like the beginning of Graver's other book, Debt, where he says that the myth, the myth that money replaces barter is bullshit. The original money is for incommensables like a slave or a bride. And then we kind of go from there. And suddenly, one of the reasons I love the great transformation by Polanyi is that he's saying, hey, hey, people, before the industrial economy, everything didn't have a price. And there are all these other ways in which we stayed alive, which we've completely forgotten and can't even imagine now to the point where we've baked into the SDGs that everybody's got to have X number of dollars a day or they're going to die, right? And you're envisioning, and I would love to figure out what is the conversation where we can have a very different world that works in different ways, but the world has been eaten by money and all these models you're talking about, Grace. So thank you for bringing that in. Sam, welcome to the call. Let's go, Sam, lay Frick. Hey, well, I mean, the only reason I raised my hand and listening to what Grace talked about there. And I realized I had one point, which is that, you know, I do a lot of work in communities where most of the time that people are framing all this around economic transactions and they're framing everything, all problem solving, all policy, all aspects of society are mostly measured by dollars and cents in the real world projects that I work on right now. But a long time ago, I got to work with Chris Cohen, who was a student of ClearW Graves, and they came up with this whole spiral dynamics thing. But ClearW Graves was like a psychologist and he realized that, you know, people were operating from worldviews and their worldview was partially what's going on in their mind and then what's in the environment, like a combination of the environment and the and the gene organism and environment like Richard Lewington talked about in the Triple Helix book. And that ClearW Graves, through observing people, saw that you can't really get people to change their that, first of all, the problems that you are talking about here are probably largely human problems in that once you can create the conditions for change, then people will adapt to the technology or see the different economy or whatever it is. But first, it's like it's like a human inertia that's currently they have those the wagons are circled in a worldview right now for what Jerry just described as saying, like, we're very heavy into this has been eaten up by the dollar economy. And there's there's there's a million different other ways to solve these problems. But until people are until the environment, the conditions are in the environment, that create the conditions for the human beings to be ready to change their worldview. And even then there's not a guarantee according to ClearW Graves, even if you create the conditions, it doesn't guarantee that people you can't force people to change their worldview. So that one insight that I wanted to share was just that that we have to create the conditions for change to get people out of the mindset of thinking that that a transactional currency based economy needs to be in place for everything that we do. And beyond that, there's already a bunch of sound theory from people like Eleanor Ostrom and everybody else about how we could go about doing this. And there's decades of work from people that have proven that we can do things in a different way. And now it just literally boils down to people just sitting and looking at other people like they're crazy, because they're not ready to operate that way. They're not ready to change their worldview. I think it's a big part of it. Anyways, that's what I had to say listening to this. I love that, Sam. Thank you. So many interesting forces at play here. Let's go Leif, Rick, Wendy. So I think what Wendy was referring to is extremely interesting and very good. And also the reference to Eleanor Ostrom, we need to have another way of scoring and developing the metrics, not the measuring, but the metrics for value creation. And that's why the second model of NONAKA in Japan is extremely interesting. It's a spiral development between you and society and the enterprise in a spiral dynamics, very interesting, and also as a route for the development of the intangible economy in Japan. But the other dimension of this is that we have to lift up, and this is a little bit of the tricky dimension. Traditional metrics is one plus one equals two. But actually, the new one is one plus one equals 11. And that, so to say, elevation is the leadership challenge, which is so visible in longitude metrics. So we should come back to that later on. But the accounting system, it's not the metrics per se that is the problem. It's the accounting community looking at assets and debts. We are even starting now to talk about societal debts and welfare debts and illness debts and hospital debts. And then we start to focus on the wrong dimension. That will not lift us up. Thank you. Sam, if you want to lower your hand, unless you want to go back in the queue. And I just remembered a comment I wanted to say at the end of what you had said, which was, and we have a huge number of humans on earth who think that cryptocurrencies and accounting for things on the blockchain or in distributed ledgers are going to solve all of our problems. Which goes right back, as far as I can tell, that's alternate money. And smart contracts are raised of reifying human language and locking it down and sort of pinning it so that we can say, oh, this is what we agreed on. And I'm troubled by this whole thing at the same moment as I'm attracted to it, like I'm off to a flame. And I know that some of us have been experimenting in that sphere and learning lessons about what's happening there. But I think that in a world where we need to detach ourselves from measuring everything and valuing it with money, and then extrinsic rewards corrupt intrinsic motivation, I think is a different way of saying what Grace put in the conversation a little earlier. And when you then extrinsically sort of measure and reward everything, you really screw things up. The reason I didn't participate much in the immediate network early on is that you could give people points when they don't, you know, contributed something good. But the number of points you had accrued in the network hung around after your name in a parentheses. So it was like, here's my name and here's my score for how many people have given me goodies in the network, which was just bizarre. Grace, thank you for sharing your cat with us. And Kevin, you had a puppet in front of you earlier. I'm still curious about what that puppet was. But let's go to Rick. Quickly, that was Rumi who was skeptical of Western folks planning. Oh, I love that. I didn't realize there was a Rumi doll. I might have to go there. Thank you. Rick, Wendy, and then Sam again. Yeah, thank you very much. First time comeer actually, Kevin, I thought that that was Punch and Judy you were going to do there. But that's what I thought you're trying to do, not Rick. But anyway, this week I listened to Hidden Brain. And it was about the plan, if you've heard it, but the metaphors they used there, which I thought were quite clever, but they were limited, was looking at the COP26 conference as a, is it our Dunkirk ID today? And my immediate reaction was, this is the wrong metaphor. And I want to touch on a point I think Grace mentioned about female power and how it's different to men. And if we change our metaphors, I think it's incredibly important to change away from metaphors to ecological metaphors. This week, I participated in a Canadian group that of academics was talking about the whole discipline of ecological economics and creating a flourishing and the language is very different. So I knew some of the players in that. So it was fascinating to grow that. But what I want to come to is how we're trapped by our current narrative structures and the hero's journey, which is totally broken. And so we need to actually co-create a living story movement of lifelong learning about hope, how we can co-design an equitable, regenerative and sustainable future. And we need a new language for that. And we have to get away from talking about values and talking about virtues. And we need our virtues to guide our values. So we don't get so transfixed on metrics, money, et cetera, et cetera, which doesn't help us move the needle that we're going to be facing with the onslaught of a whole series of black swan events. And I'll put a blog post in that speaks to this. That's my musings of the morning. I call myself an equity muse, and I'm trying to mentor mentors who would like to be equity muses and encouraging people to ask much more evocative questions that make us much more dynamic. Anyway, that's my musings of the morning. Rick, here you are in my brain as equity muse. And a few of the things you've been working on and if you add the post, I will add it here in my brain. And let's go to Wendy. Yeah, so echoing that, I think I'm loving this thread about how can we weave the new story. It was connecting to what Sam was saying about changing people's perspectives and beliefs. I love what Grace added from the beginning that kind of kicked this off. And I just want to say, I think there's quite a few different frameworks for how we could break up society in a healthier way, whether it's like the wheel of co-creation. I know there's another couple other ones. I just want to offer up that my thought started to go there going, we could start with trying to frame a new story, at least in each of these disciplinary areas of society. I think it's a lot to ask that we come up with some kind of overarching something, but I would love the exercise of trying to at least in some sections say, even if we take what we think the story is now, we probably could identify that pretty well and then try and flip it 180 or something like that, almost like a mental exercise of trying to rewrite the story, what would it look like and what does it sound like? And we don't necessarily need to get to the new story, but it would be a nice exercise to at least start to put a positive spin or a new re-imagining on top of it. I bet this group would be a great group to start to weave that. And I will say that there are many, many, many individuals and organizations trying to come up with new stories. And the talk that I pointed to by George Monbeaud, he presents his story and he contrasts it in story frame to the previous stories that it needs to replace. And it's interesting and it hasn't sold well enough that everybody's like on the same page with the same story, but I don't know that Wendy that we have to invent one from whole cloth. And I don't want to stop us from trying because that's easy enough to generate words and think about them and put them in the world. But there's a bunch of people working on the story or set of stories to figure out how it works. And from my perspective, we are currently living inside of so many different rings of sort of concentric and overlapping, mutually reinforcing cycles of dysfunction about whether we're enough, about whether we have enough money, about how to compete in society, about zero sum-ness, about the current logics and means of neoliberal globalist capitalism and consumerism and all that kind of stuff that they won't all come undone at one time. And I'm extremely interested in finding the subtle small thing that will cause people to start to tip and behave differently in the face of the current system. And here, one of my heroes is Milton Erickson, who was a hypnotist and therapist back in the day. And he had this way, his MO was to try to open a conversation with your unconscious, which he did through hypnosis, and give your unconscious more options, more behavioral repertory at the moment when you were approaching the thing that you had a problem with. So if you had a phobia about crossing bridges, he would talk to your subconscious and say, hey, what if you pulled over and took a couple of breaths? What if you whatever? And I'm kind of making things up here. But he was skilled at very small interventions that cause large-scale behavioral change in his clients, because he understood that psychology. And I'm trying to find what is the subtle knife that lets us do this at a social scale? What is the tiny story that we'll carry like free hugs carries really well, right? Free hugs carried really, really well. The ice bucket challenge, strangely enough, there's probably a million charities in the world going, why didn't we think of the ice bucket challenge? Damn it, we could have made a fortune. But that's a meme that carried really well, although it wasn't transformative, because it was nonsense. It was pouring ice over your head. It wasn't about behavioral change. It was just a way to collect money. But these things really traveled, traveled excellently. And with all these little social media things that we critique and deprecate all the time, get more travel than major news media than everybody else. Like the normal standard media entities and a book don't get that much readership or audience compared to all these other things that are traveling around the world. Yeah, I mean, there's so much in what you were just saying that's interwoven together, in my mind. One is what motivates humans to change is a whole science in and of itself, right? Like that's a whole conference or a week long that could just be on that alone in terms of and there's a lot of great science behind it. And what we think is going to be motivating then sometimes also isn't when it comes to social media. So there's a whole another layer in terms of like what makes things viral is not actually what makes people change their behavior, right? So to your point, again, about the ice bucket challenge, right? That might have gone viral, but it's not necessarily something that changed everybody's behavior a month out, right? So to me, that's more complicated even than we need to get. And to me, the story isn't necessarily about the solutions we're trying to provide. The story goes back more to the hero's journey version that the reason why the hero's journey is something that speaks to us is because there's something deeper in our psyche that is about this journey that we all make that we believe we need to go through hell and suffering in order to come out this other side with some, some token of greatness and bring that back into our communities to rise up our communities. To me, that cycle is changing. And I see that cycle changing in especially in kind of the next generation of going, do we really need, I mean, there's a bunch of questions popping up. Do we really need to suffer before we can make a change? Do we really need to write like all these questions about, and is it only one person that gets to be the hero or could more people be a hero together? And what does hero look like anyway? And do we really have to have conflict in our stories for them to be interesting? All these things that we have imbued and all believer important structures from which we tell our narratives, both individually and collectively, are starting to break apart with the systems too that are breaking apart. I just feel like that to me, it's about that it's not necessarily about coming to a solution. It's about starting to just tell ourselves a different narrative that has a powerful ripple effect if we find the narrative that speaks to something in our psyche that calls us forward and stops putting us in the position of being the reluctant hero that needs to make the journey and instead the inspired hero that works collaboratively with it. I mean, I don't know. That's the point. That was super juicy and connected for me. Thank you, Wendy. And though like why is there one hero is sort of this kind of Western mythological, we have a hero and we deify the hero and we do that with business heroes, right? And we put, you know, Jack Welch used to be like a hero across the US until he was a pariah for some people and still a hero for a bunch of people. But we have that. I used to look at Fortune magazine and partly at Forbes magazine like America's Two Big Business magazines back in the day as hagiographies like, hey, we're going to talk about how fabulous these, you know, deans of industry are. And then on conflict, the brief note, I actually kind of like conflict in the process for different reasons. But here I'm building on Scott Peck's community building model, which convinced me years ago that community and trust are forged through difficulty. And that facing difficulty and sticking together through difficulty and solving things through difficulty actually bond us in ways that we don't bond when we're just working at the surface going, hey, I like you. You're kind of cool. Let's talk, right? And so there's a different conversation to be had there that I'd love to go back into. Let's go Sam Gilrich Doug. Yeah, I'll try to keep what I'm saying brief here. But I realized that earlier, I mean, I liked everything that Wendy said, but I'm not even going to try to respond because I'll just take up a lot of time and when she said it better than I ever could. So anyway, I was listening to the talk about how we're, you know, it's on the one hand, it can be destructive to create some kind of measurement system that assigns like monetary value to everything. But on the other hand, we do use a measurement for let's say we want to know what it's going to be like outside before we go out and we're going to look at the weather and that's a measurement, you know. And the work that I do now, I was asked to come in and help people try to like re regionalize food systems and try to gain the benefits from bringing food systems back to a regional level where they have been quite consolidated and and and centralized in the United States for various reasons. And so one of the first things that I did was I created this giant dashboard of like all of the food economy stuff going on in in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, which is where Pittsburgh is at. And then, you know, that, you know, that didn't really have a massive impact with people just to see that. And even though they can see like, millions of dollars happening, a business happening here, that's important. But if for us to for us to actually be able to get traction and really move things forward, we also had to do, I got University of Pittsburgh students involved, and we had to do a combination of qualitative listening to people. And basically, what we discovered that the more that we sat down and listened to people and gave them an outlet to talk about how this applied to their problems, the more that the measurement was valid, and the more they could see how to utilize that, and the more that we could reflect all of that back to people and make it their asset. So if you were, whether you're people in a neighborhood that has food security and you have no grocery store in your neighborhood, or whether you're a grocery store chain that wants to bring local food into your grocery store, or whatever, all these different things that people were trying to do with local and regional food, nothing really moved until we could get everyone talking to each other. And it almost all the problems needed to be solved with partnerships, and everyone had a story, and all the people had everything that I'm talking about here was all like the building blocks towards making just this one problem work. But we had to basically like sit down and keep ingesting and reflecting back and processing what people were saying. And I think not only did that help in giving a different way to kind of like have a pulse on what's happening from the human side of it, but also I realized people started to feel listened to and in many other areas they weren't being listened to, and they'd rather come to people that are listening to what they're saying and work with them than just like struggle around in the dark and try to like figure out how to do things. So that's not a big component of what I do, even though I was hired to do data science, I also try to take some of Eleanor Ostrom's kind of qualitative research approach to things and sit down and listen to people. And we always try to make it a point to reflect back whatever insights we find from them and everyone else in the community and the analytics of the data about the community as well, like how many people live there and whatever it may be, all together. So we're trying to create that feedback loop and make it an asset. But I think that's important and that helps people hear and understand each other's stories. If somebody's constantly taking on the responsibility to do that, then on local and regional levels you can start to, if you decided that you wanted to move the needle on something, you would have to get in and listen to people and hear what they have to say. They're going to tell you how they can do it in their context. Humans are smart and they're eager to have the conversations you're describing. I love what you just said and it reminds me of Andy Lipkus and three people down in LA who was just a left plant more trees activist who wound up being the catalyst for a series of conversations across agencies in the LA Basin, federal, state, government, whatever, whatever city who didn't know they had conflicting mandates, overlapping resources, idle resources, et cetera, et cetera. And once they started talking, we're able to act much more in concert. And sometimes it's just convening a safe place to let people go solve the problems. And it's usually, as Eleanor would tell us, the people closest to a problem that know best what to do about it. That's really often the case, which is why one of the principles of her governing commons is let the people who are closest to the commons sort of do the managing. Go ahead, Kevin. Oh, okay, I'll do it right now. Well, I was communicating with Gil on email recently and he's got some folks who want to do, you know, climate adaptation in cities at scale. And I was suggesting the folks I work with are mostly in heat sinks. You know, it's hotter in their neighborhoods. There aren't trees, there isn't good drainage. And one way to solve that is related to a story that we're working on that has worked. And in this neighborhood in Indianapolis, we use this thing called a neighborhood vitality index to make the social capital and resilience and mutual support more clear in this neighborhood. And one bank there has reduced the cost of mortgage financing because their perception of risk of this poor, mostly black neighborhood has gone down because the social capital is visible. And so if you refinance the mortgage, you know, the asset is therefore going to be more valuable. Therefore, the tax base is increased. Therefore, it's more easy to solve heat sinks. And so it's one of these odd things that, you know, where environmentalists can actually be on the side of justice for all people. But it was really that, you know, this tool is good enough that a bank says, oh, this neighborhood is less risky. So and we're looking to replicate that tool in a lot of the work we do. Thanks, Kevin. Gil Rick. It'd be cool to have a participant named Gil Rick, actually, but go ahead, Gil. Well, we can, we can mock one up. Kevin, thank you. Golly, Sam, thank you, Wendy. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. One of the threads I'm hearing here is the one in the many. Kind of the ongoing tension, dynamic tension that we have in the way that we think and be in the world about the great man theory of history, the hero that we're talking about and the heroism of everybody, the story and the many stories. The way that the story changes is not by somebody writing the right story. It's by a lot of people telling different stories and at some point they coalesce and become adopted. This is, you know, so I think that's some of what Erickson is doing. And it's very much what Graber is doing in this new book where he's basically asserting only a hundred pages into, I think, an 800 or 900 page book. But what he's basically saying is that the given story of human history, actually, the two given stories, Hobbes and Rousseau, you know, we were Brutes and now we're sophisticated or we were angels and now we're shit. Those are kind of the two stories we live in. He says, no, if you look, if you look at the anthropology over the last 30 or 40,000 years, human history is much more diverse, much more experimental and much more would say a choice. It's like, you know, people have chosen to step back from empire and consolidation and great man and so forth. And he's basically, as I'm reading it so far, saying there's a lot of options in the world. There are lots of ways we have done things and therefore can do things. There's a, I posted this somewhere, the piece in Jacobin that is the one that asserted that kind of puts this book in the league with Galileo and Darwin says David Graber knew that ordinary people could remake the world because they do. And the work that we do in the storytelling, it's not to find the story but to propagate many. It's not to find the plan but to propagate many and find as much as possible common framework in all those. And so for that, to me, that's very interesting. Ostrom provides a coherent framework and a highly diverse emergent processes of adaptation. And, you know, to finish, we, everybody runs around looking for the silver bullet, Hunter Lovens talks about silver buckshot. You know, many, many, many small projectiles aimed in a general direction rather than trying to find the one thing that solves everything. Everything is far too complex to lend itself to single solution. I'm loving this conversation. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Same here. Thank you. The kudos to what Kevin said. I owe you a response on that. One of the angles there that he's nibbling at, I think there's more to go there, is that if in fact there is something called ecosystem services that have value, if we can enhance the ecosystem functionality of a heat sink neighborhood or a city, we're generating value that there's, that is not yet captured, monetized or incorporated into the scheme of things. I'm not saying we should monetize it, but we should certainly value it so that we can nourish or that is changing the story of risk that banks have by letting them see the so that they make visible the social capital that's there that they're not trained to look for. Yep. Well, we're lifting up, we're lifting up both the social capital and the ecological capital, neither of which are they trained to look for. There's a, there's a, Kevin is putting those together in these communities that are generally overlooked by all sorts of folks. Yeah. There's an interesting conversation sort of behind the conversation we're having here about what to measure and what to value and how to value it. Grace kind of started the conversation, but, but I think I need to sit and stew on that some more because, because for me, very, very often all too often we monetize and then measure things that we shouldn't even be touching. And here we're saying, hey, in order to make the system work for neighborhoods that don't get mortgages, for example, we needed to make visible some of the value that was flowing there for people in a way that was intelligible to them. And once they saw it, they were like, oh, okay, let's lend. And that's, that's really interesting because we're working at different layers in the system here. And, and I think the design of value, value measurement, value metrics and so forth is going to be a crucial, crucial thing moving forward. Thank you for all that. Mr. Patello. Thank you. I just want to build on what Wendy was talking about. And it reminded me of a book called, if you see butter on the road, kill them. And in some respects, we have to kill the hero's journey and the hero because the hero can't save us. And it's a, it's a complete mythology. And so how can we shift beyond this to stories of heroism with the royal we. And a couple of books that came to mind, as I was thinking about what I was going to say was how can we create living story movements based upon the open innovation work of Henry Chesper and also John Doar's book on measure what matters. Because that provides a framework for innovation. How can we scale up the innovation capacities and capabilities of ordinary people because that's the only way we're going to scale up something that's going to have any measure of mitigating against the disasters we're going to be facing in the future with climate change. So I'm just wondering whether what resources people have come across about what is the new narrative that we're going to have to create that allows us to be able to exponentiate our responses because we're so divided. There's so much polarization around. And unless we can unravel our political quadmiers, there are handicapping our abilities to respond. We're not going to, we're not going to be very effective. We need the three sectors working together, the political, the public, and the private. Unfortunately, they're at war with one another. And we have to move to an ecological framework. I'm raking up and speaking. And some of that war is intentional. Wendy, did you want to jump in? Okay. Thank you. The problem partly is, or the problem is made worse by the fact that some of the players in the political sphere have realized that by exacerbating those differences and pitting groups against each other, they can actually at least lock things up and maybe even win lots of power. And we're in the middle of that, which is keeping us from the already challenging and difficult sets of collaborations that we're talking about as necessary. So it's messy. If I could quickly respond to that, one of the challenges is how can we deconstruct the dark side of megalomaniac, sociopath, and narcissism. That's the dark side. That sounded like a simple question to answer. Well, that's why you ask evocative questions. You have to ask the evocative questions to get people to focus on what matters. And if you don't deconstruct the old and reconstruct the new simultaneously, it ain't going to happen. I'm with you. Mr. Carmichael. Okay. As I listen, there's a great stress in the conversation on changing the attitudes of individual people. I think that that's a bit of a mistake. The agency that we're coping with right now with climate is institutional, not individuals. And we've got to find a way to take on the big oil companies. And we're not looking for that. We could change everybody's opinion, and it wouldn't make any difference. I want to add, if we fail at COP 22, is that an opportunity or does that really set us back? COP 26, I think you mean the one that's coming up, the one that's just started. Yeah, I'm not even sure what fail means in this case. I mean, other than not coming up with an agreement or something. But yeah, there's a lot on the table right now. Leif. Yeah, I think I really appreciate this conversation and it's getting richer and richer. I wanted to add two small stories. In Lund, we started many years ago with a student's group called Venture Lab. And the Venture Lab was with young students, given free or idle capital of the university system of Lund. And it has been extremely successful. We offered them free of charge during a period of nine months, the possibility to explore and develop and show or build a narrative in the taxonomy of today. And it is still going on. It's very good. And I think the learning there is the second part of it of the Venture Lab. That is, there is so much capital in waiting, untapped potential. And that untapped potential is very visible in this conversation as well. So therefore, we need to bridge it. And the most recent construct in Lund is a startup called Scania Engine. And as you probably have realized in your car, even if it's an electrical car, you have a start engine. And so we need to develop that start engine for society. And that's what one guy, you investor, did in Lund. And it's really starting to go in a very positive spiral up on getting people together to weave the new story of the city of Lund, and the University of Lund, and the region of Lund, and Sweden, and the region of the Öresund. So the start engine concept. Thanks, Leif. If you have a link to that or something that you could share in the chat. I just searched for Scania Engine and it tells me what the Volvo's new V8 is like. And I'm like, I don't think that's what we're talking about. You have a feel through that. Stacey. Yeah, so I had been talking to people expressing my desire to talk about using, to use the language of an attention economy so that I could bring in things like effort and time and weave those values in. And yesterday I mentioned to Jerry and he actually said the presence economy. Now most of you, you know, those of you that know me, I haven't read a lot of these theories. My learning has come from observations and listening. And so before I sat down to write yesterday, I said, I better look up and see what's written about the attention economy and the presence economy. So I did that. And what first came up, I think his name was David Jay. There were two charts and it showed the attention economy and the presence economy. And it said the attention economy creates people who the presence economy creates people who and my first thought probably coming because I'm not coming from business, which is really most important what I'm trying to say, is I was like, wow, we're prioritizing the economy over people. We're looking for an economy to create the people. And that's what has to shift. And to me, that's a result of the cultural, the culturalization of capitalism, which all these well meaning people that are trying to come up with something new, they have to recognize their own culturalization. So I just wanted to share that because I think that's important. Thank you, Stacey. And can you share David's David Jay's post in the chat a few I don't know. It was in medium. Okay. You know what, I bet we can use the the large Oracle that exists for free on the web to find it. Thank you. Thanks. I'm challenge technically. That's right. Leif, I think you still have your hand up. That's great. So we're getting close to the end of our 90 minutes. This has been actually a little fast, even for me. We sort of glanced gave glancing blows to a lot of really important things. And I would love to just slow down for the last 10 minutes and reflect on the process. And we had a slightly bumpy road into finding our topic. I think we had a like a juicy, useful conversation in the middle of it. I'm really pleased for where we went and all the resources. I've been weaving them into my brain as we go. And I'll share that back in the Mattermost channel when I post the video and all of that. But if we could just spend a moment. Pete just put a link in the chat, Stacey, if that's the right, if that's the right article, give us a thumbs up, please. I'm guessing yes. Cool. But why don't we just do a little bit of reflecting and debriefing on the process for our last 10 minutes? Anybody want to jump in? Jump in quickly. When you think about changing the big story, I remember Eleanor Ostrom said the solution to a global problem is not a global solution. It's a polycentric solution. It's everywhere as a pressure point. And there's something about polycentricity distributed something, distributed everything or decentralized everything, interdisciplinarity and then safety that I think the nexus of those things is part of our solution space. And unfortunately, a lot of the decentralization effort right now is tied pretty strongly to cryptocurrencies and distributed ledgers and the web 3.0 and all of that and the D web. And I don't have a strong negative feeling about that yet, but I have an instinct that that's not the right kind of solution or there's a piece of it that's right and there's a piece of it that's wrong and I can't peel them apart. Anyway, that's sitting as a question that came up during our process for me. Other reflections on our process. And by the way, Doc Searles, a friend of ours has a residency at Ostrom's workshop right now. They've rented a flat in Bloomington and he gave a seminar, as Eric mentioned earlier this week, that was a lot about his initiatives and kind of intention casting and a bunch of other things like that. But we could sort of easily connect in there and see how to be helpful or what to do. Other thoughts on this conversation? This was a perfect conversation for everybody. No, come on. We didn't we didn't exactly select the topic like we threatened to do at the start of the call. Well, I felt like we narrowed down on when Wendy posed the sentence and put it in the chat that I was focused on that. And I was hoping that that was kind of a gentle focus for all of us, but it and we didn't manage to synthesize everything perfectly, but it worked pretty well for me. And if someone wanted to propose another way to do picking a topic on the alternate weeks is yes, totally, there's going to be a quiz afterward. There's a quiz in a month. You have to remember it. Yeah, exactly. I need to recall the topic was selecting a topic. There was a there was a piece of that at the beginning. And if somebody wants to recommend a better algorithm for topic selection, I'd be up for that too. And I my habit for a lot of calls is merely to pick a topic from like in there because I'm like, this sounds like an interesting thing. And let's see who shows up. So that's my MO typically Doug. Well, what happened in the process, I think we started out as people putting in ideas for things to talk about, then the speeches would get longer and longer. And we never got to the things that probably half the people in the group would have wanted to talk about. Can you name one for you? Well, what to do about the fact that we're failing with climate change? Well, I feel like we address that in some interesting ways. I don't feel like we skirt I don't feel like we were skirting that topic. I mean, no, I don't think I didn't feel skirted. But I think other people did. Okay. Anyone who did? I'm just trying to like get a sense of where we just missing the point entirely, Rick. Yeah, I maybe have a slight I think I think it was touched on, but it may not have been to the satisfaction for Doug. So I think, you know, people will take different pieces. But this issue of topic one thing that I just put a question in and round think of a topic is to frame it as evocative questions where people can co-create it and decide collectively, what is the question that we want to focus on from this discussion and even spend some time mulling over that question and focusing on that question and doing it honing in do a deep dive. This was sort of like more of a lateral thing. But if you want to, you know, and the pros and cons between horizontal and vertical approaches, but I can understand why Doug might have been frustrated because we didn't go deep enough into that. Yeah. And we're 90 minutes and we're all kind of scattered here. And we sort of went into none of these topics in enough depth for me, because I would love to be able, I just need a time multiple, a fractal time multiplying device, because I want to pause and go, oh, Rick, the stuff that you're doing, you know, or Sam, the stuff that he's doing in local food systems. What is that like and how to unpack it and how that relates to the stuff Kevin's been doing with local neighborhoods and as heat sinks. And I mean, every one of these is practically interesting. And the only way we're going to sort of wind up solving this is kind of in a distributed collaborative way where we share in what we learn and how we figured out. Wendy. So it's interesting for me about this conversation and listening to all of you reflect on it too is having conversations like this, I think you're unique and special in the sense that it's some it's a topic that touches on, I'm guessing touches on everything that we're all working on. And for me, the takeaway is that I'm going to, as I start working on more of my project, it's a reminder of to keep your to keep yearning and stretching and reaching for that new narrative that's going to ripple and affect everyone else. So that's kind of the takeaway I take from this, which it has incredible value because there's very few places to have these conversations. Getting, you know, setting a time to talk about climate change is a hornet's nest in and of itself. And for me to kind of look come at it from a different angle like we did today is super valuable. And my ultimate goal and the projects that I'm working on is to really is to start to create an interface that we can see these varying perspectives and how they interlink with each other, right? So we might say that today's perspective was maybe more philosophical or social psychology or even, you know, psychology. And that has a place in the narrative of when we're building, you know, new economies and new, right? It has a place in all these other things. And I think that's one of the rich fields of gems that we pull from coming together like this is a community is that, you know, I enjoy the conversations when we get deep into tech because there's usually some gem in there for me. And I enjoy these conversations too. And I think these happen a little less often. And I really appreciate them when they do. Thank you. Thank you so much. That was lovely. Rick, then Leif, and then we're close to our end of our call. Very quickly, I just wanted to to emphasize something you just said, Jerry, which is there's there is a diversity here. But how can we in some on some occasions go up to the meta level and look at what are the questions that are generic across domains that are generalizable and how can we ask questions that people want to speak to. And I think that's a difficult thing to set the agenda. And it may need some work between these sessions to say which what is if you decide to do this, what's the question of the week, so to speak, that people can have input into rather than just one person setting the agenda. I'm working on them speaking. Yeah, thank you. And it would be very interesting to take the Mattermost channel for these calls, which is OGM calls, and have a process that by two weeks from now, because next week we'll do a regular check in rhythm. So we would have two weeks to sit and pick and sort of refine a really nice focus question for the next call like this, that would be be totally up for that. So we'll put a link to that channel in the in the Zoom chat right now so everybody can be on it. But that might be a really thing, a really nice thing to test for next next call like this, which is two weeks from today. Leigh, and then I'd like to read a poem for to take us out. So I wanted to add to the conversation, the roadmap from Professor Nanaka in Japan, it's called Seki Model. Have a look at the Seki Model, and that might be a topic for the next conversation. It's multi-dimensional, and it's also taking us up to the next level of conversation. So that is in Japan, a kind of roadmap for Society 5.0. And I left the tab open with Nonaka Seki, because I have Nonaka in my brain, but not his Seki Model, so we will find that out and share that. Thank you. And just by way, we're at the half, but I subscribe to a poem of the day from the Poetry Foundation, and this morning's poem kind of stopped me a little bit, so I want to read it for us, and I'll share the link to it. Let me get rid of the stuff after the question mark, and I'll post the link in the chat, and then I'll read the poem, which is titled, The United States Welcomes You by Tracy K. Smith. Why and by whose power were you sent? What do you see that you may wish to steal? Why this dancing? Why do your dark bodies drink up all the light? What are you demanding that we feel? Have you stolen something? Then what is that leaping in your chest? What is the nature of your mission? Do you seek to offer a confession? Have you anything to do with others brought by us to harm? Then why are you afraid? And why do you invade our night, hands raised, eyes wide, mute as ghosts? Is there something you wish to confess? Is this some enigmatic type of test? What if we fail? How and to whom do we address our appeal? And I just read that, and I just was brought to a complete stop by the poem. It's beautiful. Very. And hey, that could be a history book right there. And there's the chat channel. Thank you, Pete. Really appreciate that. And see you all in a week. So next week is going to be normal check and rhythm. And the week after that, we're back to whatever topic we were fine in that channel, which I'm down for. Sounds great. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. As we used to say on the Jungle Cruise, our river dirty. Hey, Jerry, how do I save the chat on a phone? Do you know? I just saved it and I'll post it in the Mademois channel. Even perfect. Thank you, Pete. Bye, everybody.