 kids, so all the cord. And this is the build OGM call for Tuesday. Don't remember night 2021. Yeah, amazing how few calls I do on my phone now and almost never using the phone function. It's almost always on WhatsApp or some other alternate phone world universe. Very strange. Yeah, I have refused to download WhatsApp, but to get to the drug dealers, I loaded the signal. See, you didn't install an app. I'm glad we caught that on the recording. So yeah, so Pete, I need to sync with you. I apologize. We had a dry run call with Ken Homer on Friday for Reading the World. And Pete and I need to sort of mesh gears that we figure what step happens when and I realized that like, should I do the very first pass on the script, et cetera, et cetera. But that's kind of a call for us to all of this is for us to sync and coordinate. We have a call later today. So we should, we should do it together instead of having you do it separately. And I apologize, but some things come up for our 11 o'clock. Oh, okay. So I'll move that one. And so I think one question, one question that's just kind of swirling around in my head is what to do with the shadow episodes, what to call them nomenclature framing, all that kind of stuff. And this is not a fully baked thought. And this is something that would really sort of help build OGM. So this is not a fully baked thought. But the more I think about it, the more I think that the shadow calls, the behind the Kirkman calls, maybe ought to be a second podcast entirely. But I'm just not sure. You can elaborate on what you mean by shadow calls. Yes. So the conceit of weaving the world is that there's a normal podcast that has episodes. Awesome. And usually those episodes drift off into history. And if you're lucky, the podcast did a nice job putting a transcript up on a web page for that call and blah, blah, blah, blah, but not much more. And our conceit is that we're going to have one or more episodes of whatever this is after each episode where we look back on the contents of that episode and connect it up, map it, find alternate ways of mapping it. Basically weave it into the big fungus. Does that make sense? And there's like a fix it in post kind of thing going on here where we're trying to create shared context rather than just let these calls disappear into the ether. And I'm going to be using my brain before the call, during the call, and after the call, but want to encourage other people using Rome, other people using tools like MX or whatever else to join us and then see how we can do kind of what Flotilla Friday's have been doing in some sense. Like how do we work toward the center? How do we build shared artifacts that are durable? Is there a word that means like when you're blending threads together, like when you're creating like a yarn or something like that? And in navel, not making, there's a splice, but that's not a very friendly word. That's more like chunks. Pete, you're locally muted. There's a cool word there. I think the instrument that you use to splice ropes is a fid. A fid? No. That's interesting. I went on a family vacation. You know, we were in a tackle shop or something like that. So we had a crab trap and bought a little plastic thing. And I saw a splicing rope for weeks after that. Fitting it all together? Yeah. I like that. Fids are cool. Fids are cool. Fids aren't just for kids. There is spinning of yarn and spinning of wool into yarn. The spinning wheel is a very deep symbol for Indian liberation, the country of India, Pakistan, and... Absolutely. Oh, interesting. Wire rope shackles metal. I didn't know if fids were related to Marlon spikes, although I guess that's actually, if somebody very carefully dissected my brand, it would have found that actually. I wasn't aware of it. Somebody someday is going to very carefully dissect your brand heat. I'm pretty much sure of it. With luck, you won't be aware of it. And you know what Marlon spike is, right? And I don't mean the definition you just gave. I mean, Captain Haddock's home in 1010. Marlon spike hall. So I didn't know that. But I know Marlon spike. Yes. That's a different Marlon spike. So many uses. And also, so there's also weaving, which is done with hair in hair salons, where you're reweave, what's it called? Reweave or weave. So it's just a weave, right? Hair extensions, which are a form of splice, I think, kind of without the splicey part. But also there's like the knotting off or there's tying off. There's a couple of things where patterns meet in a quilt or in others or in a tapestry. I don't know where. So I will consult my textile art expert at Zeba and see if there's words for that. Because there's really interesting words for weaving. Once you get into weaving, there's also all kinds of terms for the devices and the methods and the processes. I am reading an article, which I will post immediately, but here's a sentence. You could invest in a nitty knotty, which is specifically designed for winding yarn into hanks. And it's fun to say. Is that the round thing with the little crisscrosses that? I think that is a spindle. But I'm not sure. I think it's more of a, they don't have a picture of a nitty knotty here. They suggest using an arm and a wrist. But I believe it's like a, the nitty, I'd have to look up nitty knotty. Anyway, you're right. There are interesting terminologies to be found. A nitty knotty with KMs? No, with just ends, nitty knotty. Oh, it's that little thing. You know, off topic, except it's related because there's obscure terminology is knives. Recently, I decided that I wanted to buy us a bigger pocket knife, a very sharp one to cut things at the beach because you find random crap that's knotted up the beach. So anyway, the like the little parts of a knife where you put your thumb and where you put your finger and stuff like that, they all have these weird names. Oh, interesting. So I saw, yeah, go ahead. And there's a whole like, like you can buy the $100 to $200 really nice American made knife, or you can buy same company now makes cheap Chinese knockoff, which is like 30 bucks. That's the one I bought. But anyway, you can take them all apart and then, you know, you swap the parts for, you know, like cool titanium things are cool, like, you know, colored things and stuff. Did you get the one with the pick, the pick in any rail or whatever's called the nit, nit, ni rail. There's a bit on like guns, guns have weapon systems now have rails that you can. Yeah, I didn't see in any rail attachments really for the next. Yeah, I doubt that a knife would ever have anything like that. But there are amazing. So then, then I was like, you know, I'm going to get a simple knife and throw up my backpack and do that's totally illegal. Like don't get the wrong kind of knife. It's like, knives are very heavily regulated. It's really, I mean, it's not that weird, but it's weird. So, so last night I took and passed my second QI keto test. And then we went and celebrated at a place called Lucky Lab, which is nearby, which is like one of these kind of sawdust on the floor beer and sandwiches places. And our head sensei is like pretty heavily into all of this and a lot more. Like apparently his office at home has like shiny sharp swords and a bunch of other things. And then he's got like a little arsenal, I think, but he had in his pocket, you could see a clip outside of his pocket that looked like he might be carrying a, oh, maybe a tape measure or something, you know, just a clip to hang it on the pocket. And then he's sort of in the middle of conversation because the conversation went that way. He pulls out a knife that it looks like a knife with a handle. But then the whole thing is actually like the whole thing folded out was this was this big and clearly very handy in a knife fight kind of kind of thing. And he walked through some of the technical details with none of the language, but it was like, well, this does this and I got this because this and there's another one that you can get that does this. And like amazingly intricate and the wild proliferation of these instruments online is crazy. And the number of people who will simply buy dozens and dozens of them is also crazy. So yeah. So bless you. That reminds me of Sean Connery playing Eliot Ness, never take a knife to a gun fight or rather never take a knife to a gun fight. Bond, right? No, play playing Eliot Ness. Oh, that's right. Yeah. So why would an Aikido sensei want the knife? Makes no sense at all. Oh, it sure does. Because like when you're close in, that's that's the thing that like he said, he said, you know, if you're in close in combat, knife over gun every time. Yeah, but not knife over Aikido. Oh my god. If an Aikido guy is facing a person with a knife, chances are first thing you try to do is like leave the scene. Yeah. And there's a whole bunch of Aikido that are in fact knife takeaways, right? There's there's three weapons in Aikido, the Tanto, the Bokken and the Joe. So the Tanto, the Tanto is like a dagger, the Bokken is like a sword and the Joe is a long staff. The Joe is is lovely. Like really, it's just this really, really like who knew there were so many creative things you could do with a stick. Yeah, it's super interesting. So over lockdown, we couldn't do sort of body arts, it's called, we couldn't do contact sport at all. So we met in the park once a week and we just did Joe practice. So we learned a Joe Kata and a bunch of other stuff that was really, really cool. Give me huge respect for martial arts stunts people. And for people like Jackie Chan who do their own stunts and Tom Cruise and so forth because the and I have to win, but Keanu Reeves because the things that they're doing are really, really difficult. Anyway, so we have drifted into metaphor space that is not friendly to weaving the big fungus. I'll just say that out loud on the record. So is fungus woven or what is that term that is? We're working toward mulching or composting. Interesting things here, but I don't think the ants think of themselves as composting. How do rhizomes grow? The hyphae. So mycelium, the growing tips of mycelium are called hyphae. What is the verb for that though? Hyphenization. Basically, we're working in a network and we're enriching the connections, the edges between nodes, but somehow edges for the relationships between nodes become nodes themselves. The relationships are things of primordial reality such that there are as important as, the verbs are as important as the nouns. Why don't we get right down to it. And in fact, we could wander down that trail a little further. David Bohm, a famous physicist who also did a bunch of other interesting stuff, hypothesized a verb-centric language he called Rio mode. He said that one of the problems with English and other noun-centered languages is the noun verb object, subject verb object kind of languages. They're very object-centered. What if you flipped that around and made it verb-centric? Apparently Navajo is a verb-centric language. That takes me over the fence into physics where matter apparently is energy trapped in fields and the fields are really interesting. We've spent so much time studying matter and we sort of have a loose understanding of fields. And the fields are the connections that we're talking about in some weird way because the fields are about the relationship between objects and the energy of whatever kind it is that's between the objects. And I think a piece of what we're doing to step away entirely from feeding any big fungus is we're busy trying to create resonant fields or harmonic fields or some other kind of metaphor out there of meaning. And the wacky part is the Higgs field is transmitted by a particle, as are the other fields. So there we go. My quick thought thing for verb-centric languages versus noun-centric languages is you look out at the ocean and in noun-centric languages you see there are waves. And then when you do that your brain kind of has to fixate the wave as this thing that's coming up out of the water. So if you're in a verb-centric language you look out and you say there is waving. Waving is happening. And so then your brain does a different thing. What you do is you see the water undulating rather than these fixed things that are not really there. It's also very positive just with one-on-one communication because you're focusing on a behavior instead of a person, which is usually why people get defensive. Yes. And I think Bohm was basically working on some of those principles because he's also the guy who invents Bohm dialogue or Bohmian dialogue, which is a really interesting way of coming into conversation and relationship and creating kind of a safe space in the middle of a conversation. And he was like all about the intangibles of that process, which is dead on, which is completely not off topic. That's like really the ground we're trying to work here. If I can read from the introduction of Kassir's philosophy of symbolic forms, volume one language. I was just reading that. I mean, God, the coincidence. It's beautiful. A world of thought is drawn upon when a word is used with meaning. Hence the diversity of language is that of world outlook. And each language has its own interlinguistic form and forms even more particular still. And certainly I was also watching something about, you know, the diversity of human languages have solved the language problem in so many different ways that a lot of people challenge Chomsky's notion of, you know, a universal grammar. Because, you know, the human ingenuity when it comes to the creation of languages, we just don't know because there are 6,000 languages and not enough people to study them and they're disappearing day by day. And a lot of Indigenous ways of knowing are embedded in language and place and ritual. And as we lose those languages, because the native speakers are dying off, those things merely vanish, they just they kind of go away, they disappear. And also then we normalize and codify and reify our way of seeing into the remaining surviving languages, which means we further sort of cement our way of seeing the world. And one of my hesitations about this whole effort about OGM and trying to create shared wisdom and all that, is that we wind up selecting things like words appearing on web pages as important. And like visual links between words maybe also, but we wind up kind of boiling things back down to standard language and standard constructs. And then we have a bunch of members who like, we just need the right systems approach and the right systems framework and everything all will be good. I agree completely. Yeah, and then it's like, yeah, except that just left out a bunch of people who don't speak in those ways and who's understandings of how the world works are left to left outside that way. I know in my bones that there's a diversity of tools that's needed. And the tools that we have so far, whether it's the brain or MX or Rome or Obsidian or have you, they're not there yet. In terms of basically being that human computer symbiosis that human machine symbiosis or what I prefer to call would be a informal slash formal symbiosis. So informal language, the way that we talk, when we mix that with theory and mathematics and basically a different type of symbolization and semiotics, which is what sustains exact and strict thought, i.e. science, but allows at the same time language to be an art, a poetry, which is squishy and gooey and fun and we go, and do all kinds of different things with our joy that we have in expression. And I want to support what hyper knowledge and Mark Antoine is doing, but I have a very difficult time understanding it and I will continue to try and figure out how to understand what he is trying to do with the knowledge system. And you, Jerry, with your knowledge system and you, Peter, with your knowledge system. And Michael as well, though I must apologize, I haven't spent that much time in factory yet. And Hank and Stacey, I don't know exactly what you're doing, but you're great humans, right. Accomplishment. You know these days, these days, that's a high hurdle. It's work in progress, Mark. Hey, Michael. Michael, we're in the waters of what to call the act of weaving ideas together, partly because I'm trying to figure out are the shadow episodes of weaving the world a separate podcast entirely? What do we call them? What is the action that we're doing together? And the idea is that we have normal episodes and then we're busy trying to create some kind of shared knowledge out of that and go a little deeper and connect sort of anchor, connect, weave, blend and maybe where we disagree point those things out and set up experiments, questions, you know, ongoing questions, etc. That's kind of the process. So what to call that? And you missed the part where we talked about all kinds of military crazy stuff and we're off now into language theory. Go ahead, Mark. If I can play a little bit. I have been working with the notion of the minimum possible unit of knowing. It takes one iconic recognition, another iconic recognition and an indexical recognition or reference. So iconic reference would be, I can distinguish this from that. So I can distinguish A from B. And if there's an indexical connection, i.e. in the mind and consciousness and experience, if I see A, I can be reminded or A can refer to B. At the same time, necessarily B can refer to A. So having thing one, thing two and thing two and thing one. So you have a sequence of A to B and a sequence of B to A and that there is a reference or there isn't a reference. So duck may not be a reference to nuclear missile and nuclear missile actually actually refers to duck and cover, but not to the quack quack kind of duck. Perhaps, certainly if you Google duck and nuclear missile, you'll get 10,000 to 400,000 results. But in experience, in a sensible, sensible way, what is sense making is if I say Jerry and Peter, that makes a sense physically in the body, which Ken Homer will argue about or bring up that kind of tying where if we don't have bodies, we don't have minds. The mind is a part of the body, et cetera. But that basic bit of minimal knowledge representation digitally, I try to see if I can call it a knit, KNIT. And so knitting, I don't hear when we talk about weaving yet. And what's interesting to me is the opposite of knit is not. And I'm playing with these terminologies to see how I can make them playful and acceptable. It sounds like you can make a really nice sweater out of this logic theory. Exactly. Steve, there goes Pete. It won Pearl too. Well, crochet is knotting, no, a cross stitch, I guess. Probably has knits and knots, although it's not knitting. Yeah, a knot is also a very interesting example of a self interfering structure. You take a piece of string or two pieces of string and you can basically take something that's floppy and make it into a structure that is persistent and doesn't have that wiggliness anymore that a rope or a piece of string has. And there's just a beauty to knots that of course came from the whole earth review or coalition quarterly or the whole earth catalog for my first experience with people pointing at the beauty of knots. And you're treading into really interesting territory again because there's a term knot working which comes out of Nancy White and other sorts of people, I think. Let's see. Strategy knot working, SKW, adaptive strategy development, out of scrum, probe sense response. So they're sort of this and here's one, two, three, here's kind of the six points of strategy knot working which are really interesting at this juncture. I will add this link to our chat so everybody knows around here. Huh. But I am again attempting to figure out ways of explaining bits of knowledge as knits and bits being different from bits being decidedly different from knits in terms of relation and reference. A bit doesn't refer to anything. A bit is that iconic level of semiotic understanding where you can just tell one bit from another. And that's kind of even the classical notion of distinction. And then there's a whole conversation above my pig rate about units of knowledge. What are the units we should be measuring and storing which sort of blows up into a really interesting conversation about the tools that we care a lot about, which is like what is the minimal set of what is the smallest grain or block? In Rome, it's blocks. In the brain, it's thoughts and thought labels, et cetera, et cetera. And as you go up and down, it gives you, you gain benefits and you lose capacities kind of thing. So finding our way in that world I think is important to solving some of our problems. I think there are many units of knowledge. And I certainly in what I am trying to do with my work is not say my way is the only way or even I'm trying to find the most basic way, but basically I want to take the brain and decompose it into here's an idea expressed in symbols. Here's a different idea expressed in different symbols or the same idea expressed in different symbols and they relate to each other. One points to the other, the other points back. And that basic building, I want to see if higher level emergent meaning can be built with the dynamic of human interaction. So who is doing the interaction with the system, the formal system, and it could be Jerry or Stacey or Peter, and they're different. And when they're doing it, and each one is different as well. And so that builds an additive kind of landscape building that just gets bigger and bigger and bigger every time something is referenced within a system without having any kind of artificial intelligence. It's just dead simple plus one, plus one, plus one, plus one, plus one. And eventually minus one, minus one, minus one, minus one to reject the notion that I should link Jerry Michalski to that beautiful Portland Whiskey Museum because he's looking kind of weird like I don't know about this beautiful Portland Whiskey Museum so I'm having a minus one with Jerry with that Whiskey Museum but next time I visit Portland. And also the context you just gave puts a whole bunch of metadata around the knit that we were talking about, which is weird because now it's no longer a knit. It's a knit in context which is much larger than a knit. And that's just one context. Now you could layer. They become crochet. Multiple knits becomes weaves or crochets or I'm sure there's many other ways of fabric and human use. I don't know what is this? Meat puppet. And which takes me over into other language that I think is useful here because when the ants are mulching up the leaf matter and putting it on the fungus they're actually inoculating the leaf matter with the fungus. And I think it's called inoculation when you add scoby or a mother to a substance to turn it into a fermented product, right? When you add the base, when you're making sourdough bread and you add some food to your colony, I think that's inoculation, I'm not sure, which is a terrible word. Like it just sounds like vaccine against a pandemic. It doesn't really help very much here, but the act of doing so is really helpful because you are intentionally catalyzing a reaction with organic living matter that will transmogrify the thing that it touches and turn it into this useful, durable, fermented good. Right? About fermented, although distilled is in this different class of beverages. Pete had this link that he found to what I was talking about, the Multnomah Whiskey Library and no idea existed. It's absolutely beautiful. And if you are visiting Portland or you just want to visit, they did have a way that you could pop in for a night or two. You mean like sleep in the place? No, no, no, no. Just go there and drink. The current weight year is two to three years and they send invitations by lottery and it's 650 a year and it looks absolutely gorgeous. If you like your whiskey, it sounds like the place. It looks like the place too. I've just googled it, but it's a two-year rating list, three-year rating list. It's totally worth it. Okay. Michael, are you going to jump in a moment ago? Wow. I thought I heard you say that. I mean the one thing that I was thinking since I've been here, you had mentioned early on the idea of the shadow episode and then as we got into nits and knots and the smallest measurable unit of knowing, I mean it strikes me that out of an episode of Weaving the World, we want the disaggregated smallest units of knowledge to be, you know, as Peter would say, you know, being, what is it? Splitters and groupers or yeah, you know, if an episode is a grouping of a story where you're kind of putting things together and connecting them, that the disaggregation and splitting of them and attaching the metadata that disappeared in this episode but, you know, also appeared here and appeared there and connects to this and, you know, is a noun, is a document, is an animal, is whatever or connects to this person or connects to this link, that's something I want out of an episode and also the ability to connect it as it connects in your brain, you know, marked in your context, in Mass and Wiki, etc., etc., so that disaggregation chore, which, you know, I think or opportunity, which also relates to, you know, what Pete's been doing with, you know, with this experiment with, you know, growing over calls, systematizing that disaggregation and labeling, yeah, this is what strikes me and just a minor thing, just the knit and fabric notion as a metaphor, I love it, I come from a family of knitters, even though I'm not one, except that, it doesn't allow for the granularity in that, you know, there are these strands that you knit and not, unless you regard each strand as a grain, but you don't have this connection of individual particles the way you do in some metaphors. So two thoughts on that, one is my friend at Ziba, her degree is in textile art, where you would, so when you're knitting something, except in rare cases, you pick basically a gauge of yarn or whatever material you're using and you pick a technique, whether it's crochet or cross stitch or knitting or loom weaving or whatever, right, and that locks you into a scale, a size and a method and a rhythm that proceeds through the whole work. In textile art, you could blend whatever and you can have things, you know, things above things below and Hank introduced me to the 10, 100,000 trees project, which is a woven art piece, a collective collaborative woven art piece that includes seeds in the fabric to sort of metaphorically weave together a forest that includes organic matter, etc, which is really, really, really metaphorically rich and interesting. And then I'll add that how handy is it that the mushroom is the fruiting body of the mycelial web. And so the episodes of weaving the world are like little mushrooms that fruited out of this thing that we're busy weaving, like crazy little fungi busy, that's one of the reasons why I'm really attracted to the, you know, feeding the big fungus metaphor is that it's kind of it's sort of works that that above ground pop these these nice edible recognizable entities called mushrooms, but but they're connected deeply into there are merely the the visible and understandable expressions of this crazy network that's exchanging nutrients below ground. So so when I when I say those sentences, I'm like really, really, really happy to be talking about fungi and all of that that works really well. And some of the other metaphors like knitting, which is usually a solo practice, tap out, right? Yeah, I mean, and honestly, I was really only referring to the granularity, particularity, and, and an opportunity for chaos that the lack of order provides, which is true of a forest floor of, you know, mushrooms and stuff and not so true of patterned, regular knitting of strands in a strut, you know, in it. You know, as you were saying, you pick your, am I going to am I going to knit this with knitting needles? Am I going to use a loom? But it's going to be, you know, row, row, row, you know, it's very cellular in the kind of spreadsheet way as opposed to chaotically cellular in the growth way. But those, you know, spider web is is a less ordered form of weaving, you know, or any web. Yeah, anyway, and musings. And a spider web is a single spider's work, whereas a beehive or a termite or ant hive or mound is a collective work of like considered complexity, like crazy complexity. Well, and also interestingly, kind of formed around existing anchors or or barriers or opportunities or you want to call them, it's not like, you know, creating with the exception, maybe a yarn bombing, not, not create, you know, most most knitted things and textiles and textile art and fabric are, you know, created with their own governance without the the the limits of having to work with or work with and around objects that already exist and make sense of that, which we do. And yarn bombing is actually a lovely analogy here because it's an intervention in the physical world using art and beauty and something warm that changes that object and draw attention to it, etc, etc. Like, like, there's a lot of nice things about about yarn bombing. It's a it's kind of a it's a gentle activist thing to do. I like it a lot. You know, I think I think it's really cool too, but it's it's metaphorically feels more like slapping my view on something that exists and and and sort of overriding it as opposed to I accept this thing that exists and I weave it into and here's how I weave it into, you know, we're getting really semantic here, but but I love the, you know, the spider web and the and the wasp nest and the things that, you know, hang on structures that exist and who's who need to account for what already exists as opposed to I'm doing it my way. So that brings me back to the opening question, which is, are the shadow episodes a whole different podcast with one of these verbs? Or are they are they further material? Are they the making of or they whatever? And I'm sorry that it's just sort of becoming becoming back to this question. But but like pragmatically, I'd love to to conclude with something that we all feel works. Well, that's what I was trying to address. Actually, sorry, if I wasn't clear, just that the rather than a shadow episode, it's like, here are it's like show notes on steroids, that this is this is all the stuff. And and please build on it that grows out of and feeds into what we've just created as an episode. So it just the feeling of it being tidied up into another episode feels wrong. It feels like it should be a different medium. It should be the, you know, web accessible outgrowth, the, you know, fungal fruit of the episode, and something very different than a second episode. And and continually active. Yeah. And so which is the fruit of which kind of so what I was what I was implying a moment ago was that the weaving the world episodes are the fruit fruiting body of the mycelial work being done in the other episodes. And in fact, in the other episodes, we would choose whom to invite next and then here comes an episode. Good great. Now we dissolve back into the the mycelium and do our work basically mulching, digesting, composting, inoculating weaving how this works. And I haven't flipped it around. I haven't thought of the shadow episodes as the fruiting body or anything like that that that I get stuck on that a little bit. Probably because I envisioned the first one first and it fits so nicely for me. Can I bring up an example? Yes, please. At one point in time, four or five years ago, I was just gaga about PBS's American experience. And they have a website which goes pretty darn far in terms of connecting classroom activities, things of further study, book reviews. It's not quite community, but it's sort of this huge artifice around an episode. And it seemed to kind of die very easily. It seemed like you know, these episodes showed up. There was a focus on them. And you can kind of go back, but PBS wasn't showing the video anymore and you had to pirate it somewhere. So they were doing a good job in the moment of really like laying out materials and making them available and so forth, except they had the problem of traditional TV media, which is like shit goes away and then you've got to wind it in the internet archive or some crazy tool like that. I'm crazy tool like that. And you know, the promotion of the upcoming show was done fairly well as well. I haven't paid attention to it for a while, but I was very impressed with their team effort around each episode to basically fill in a, not quite a universe, but kind of a constellation of context. So you're making me think of something that I thought about recently, but haven't mentioned in our conversations here, which is we're creating a new podcast partly to have full control over who we invite and then the path we take through these issues. But there's endless numbers of really good episodes of other people's shows and stuff, endless. And we could easily weave them into, and what I do when I hit a really good video, documentary, post book, whatever, is I weave it into my brain and then like publish that. But there's a way in which I am highly, I was highly motivated into sort of how I see the world by James Burke's connection series. I should go take the first three episodes of Connections and do this with them and basically weave them the way I would like to and invite other people to do the same thing and then ask other people to take their favorite material and weave it and then join them on that expedition and see how that works. And that would make a really nice set of separate episodes from the actual Weaving the World podcast, although we'd still be Weaving the World. So this kind of logic makes me think, hey, what if the fungus is its own podcast? What if feeding the big fungus is also a podcast? And these two things are parallel. The problem with making the shadow episodes a separate podcast is that it's very weird to have episodes attached across podcast streams. That's just really strange. And I don't know that that works even. I think that breaks the model. So maybe these are just differently tagged and called out episodes of one big stream of podcasts, which I think makes more sense. But I think you can see that I think that the work of weaving and the work of collectively digesting and inoculating, mulching and composting the ideas is kind of a long term work. Go ahead, Pete. I didn't get why you wouldn't have two podcasts. Because this is episode three of Feeding the Big Fungus. Before watching this, please watch episode two of Weaving the World. Here's a link. There's no reason to knit each episode together. No, but welcome to episode three of Weaving the World. As always, you can go check out our show notes podcast over there. And the show notes has to refer back to that episode as well. That link has to be maintained. So you're saying that doesn't really break? Yeah, it doesn't. So I guess part of my hypothesis is there are people who are going to watch the mainline podcast. There are people who are going to watch the mainline podcast and the show notes podcast. There are less fewer people who are going to watch the mainline podcast and watch just one episode, listen to one episode of the show notes thing. So it's like, if you want the stream, here's the stream. If you're also, if you're value-added, you want the meta stream, here's the meta stream. And as a meta stream consumer, I mean it in not that word. I mean just one who consumes. Listener. As a meta stream listener, what I'm going to do is, oh my god, there's a meta stream for this podcast. I'm going to just do the whole thing. And every week I'm going to wait for the new ones to come out. And it's like, so you don't need a hard link. It's like a soft link is fine. So I just had another thought, which is what I proposed a moment ago, which I think you like, Pete, is two different streams that are just to have links between them. We could also produce one stream that is Weaving the World Just the Episodes. And it's called Weaving the World Synthesis or Short or Summary or Essence or whatever. And then a second podcast that includes those episodes and then includes all of the behind the curtain episodes. And that way you never miss an episode. You just, but what's nice about that is if all you're doing is say, you know, turn autoplay on, you basically see the episode we're going to talk about next, and then you have full context and you didn't need to follow a link and go do something weird with your app or with whatever. And remember, this needs to work on podcasting apps as well as, you know, video and whatnot. So there's no reason not to duplicate those episodes into just a richer stream, which is the full Weaving the World conversation. I don't like it. Okay, so he's not a fan of this model. So, and a thing to remember when we're doing product design is that as designers, we're always going to get it wrong. And the only right way to do it is come up with a bunch of hypotheses and then test them with real people, right? Hopefully people who represent your audience even better than just you know, any real people? No. You're not, you guys aren't average. Yeah, you're, you're a spoiler, dude. You're like, you're like, in the mix. You become part of the Bork now, Stacey. I'm sorry. So the reason I don't like that is because I, you know, it just junks up that, that stream for me. It doesn't, it doesn't add value. Again, kind of subtracts value. For me, it makes the value I like is one mainline podcast. And then the secret behind the scenes show notes one, which for, you know, for the extra special people. And I'm totally into that. You know, I love going behind the scenes. I love like seeing the making of I love, you know, the show notes. And not everybody's like that. So just separate them. And then, and then it's a win for the people who like the show notes ones. A different idea, which I had when you were describing your kind of mixed thing, the short and the long thing. I can imagine the mainline one and a TLDR one. That is, you know, the five minute summary of the one hour podcast every week or something like that. I feel like that one's cheating. I don't know. But so let's go around the room for a sec. Pete, thank you. That was a great elaboration of how this works and a really good strong opinion about which you would prefer. So I love that. Let me check in on so Hank. What's your take? Which way would you go? We can't hear you. You are in fact muted. So your opinion, while important, is now not being heard by us. You're still muted. Hank. You're muted. You're muted. Yeah. No, we didn't hear anything you just said. As an excellent human being, work in progress. I said I would go both ways. Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you. So I mean, I really believe in something for everyone. And there are different people who process information and knowledge in different ways. So nothing wrong with doing it both ways, I think. And we could experiment. I think we could try a couple. It'll be some extra work, but we could try a couple episodes and see what works. Although I'm not sure it'll be easy to experiment with these different formats, because we've got to do intros and outros that explain stuff in a pretty normal way. Stacey, any strong feelings? Yeah, I like the way Pete explained it, but I also like the third thing he just threw in, which is that little piece. And I see that as something that may be brought elsewhere. Like maybe it wouldn't serve a great purpose in this area, but I think that little short explainer could be used to reach a whole different audience. So just to complexify things a whole big bunch, when I did the Yeetan podcast long ago, which I did for nine years, a couple years in, Pip suggested I do a summary at the end of the calls, which I started doing. And then we created two separate podcasts. One was the full show, one was just the summaries, which were usually five to eight minutes at the end of the show. And I was, during those episodes, I was taking copious handwritten notes, I would easily have six to eight pages of handwritten notes by the end of an episode where I was making big circles and I would go back and look at my notes and basically cough up what we did in the episode. It was a lot of cognitive work that I can't do while managing what I'm doing now. I think it would be hard. But people love the summaries, like the summaries were hit. And because I never fully connected everything properly to the back end, I don't really have numbers for any kind. I have no statistics on what was popular kind of to an audience. But the summaries were good. And so there could be a third stream, which is the TL, TL, TL, BRs, which is like, hey, this is what we talked about this last week. If you'd like to go figure it out, here's a pointer to the episode. Like here's how to step into the bigger stream. I'm not eager to layer another layer of work on top of what we're already talking about. But I see the value. Does that make sense, Stacy? Or was that not what you're talking about? No, I don't think that was, for me, I was thinking of the third actually coming out of the second, like just being like, you know, like the show, like, I think the show notes are really important part. Like that's really exciting to me. But I think that there could also be a wrap-up of that, sort of like a, I don't know, I don't know. Well, thank you. There's also the option, if that's interesting to you and OGM, of using the model of the Dutch actuality show, Take a List, where it's broadcast on Sunday evenings. And three days later, there's a face-to-face, and in the lockdown time, it was a digital meetup at a sort of alternative intellectual café in Amsterdam for people who wanted to talk with each other about it. So that's, I mean, that's a very successful format. And I've done a couple of those, both face-to-face and digital, and it really deepens your insights. Which is a little bit like a book club to oversimplify. Yeah, yeah, it is. Right? Or a salon or a book salon or whatever you want to call. So, Michael, then Mark, just on which path you would take. I was just going to mention book club or to use the metaphor I was using, dinner club, just that you know, the podcast is this nice, neat package. And I'm not saying this in opposition to the distillation of it, which I think is a really great trailer. But, you know, you have the podcast, then you have the disambiguation of everything that was mentioned or went into the podcast, that is, you know, the ingredient list pantry, you know, provenance of all the ingredients, nutrition label, you know, I'm thinking food metaphors, and bits of which could generate other podcasts down the line. But the part of the weaving part is, okay, you know, this ingredient also shows up in these other podcasts in weaving the world that have come before this, you know, citation of this person, this book, you know, also shows up here and shows up in these other places across the pot over the metaverse, name your verse. And just, yeah, I guess I'm really pushing for not, you know, the meal that's being prepared in the form of an episodic podcast is one manifestation of knowledge weaving, but that we, you know, of weaving the world, but that we not force the other byproducts of that into the podcast template, because it's really constricting, and you want it to be an opportunity to go elsewhere, connect to other things, break things down, have other discussions Yeah, to me, that seems much more organic than another podcast. Thanks, Michael. Mr. Cronza. If we zoom out, what we're doing is designing media. And I'm reminded of some of my favorites, the Charlie Rose show. Gosh, and those wonderful talk shows, Dick Cavett and Steve Allen. Thank you. Just watching some notes here from, sorry, bathroom reading 1995 whole earth review. It's so diverse from Kafka by Arkrom to living with pros. Sorry, I was going to say from Kafka to cough drops, Kafka to cough drops to maps, prisons, women working with water, just just incredible range of variety. The media landscape is ripe, rich in its possibilities for experimentation at the moment. And if we did something that had never been done before, that could be cool if we do something that has been done before really, really well. Cool, as well. I love the term surfaced in the book, Understanding Computer's Cognition by Terry Renegade and Fernanda Flores. And that term is implications for design. What are the implications for design that we are trying to give constraints to ourselves today? This, not that. And I love to poke at the design tool called a pattern language or pattern languages. And so I would basically ask, I think we're fairly familiar with that tool, but I can learn more about it. But what is the pattern language of weaving the world? Is it community? Is it building community? Is it giving people entertainment? Is it infotainment? Is it, what is it, Joanna Zuboff's, is it surveillance capitalism? No, it's not surveillance capitalism. But certainly, at the moment, I want to ask interesting questions and basically say, you know what? The most interesting thing to me is not that somebody knows something, but that somebody doesn't know something. And here's stuff that we don't know. We don't know how to save the world from humans yet. We don't know how to manage, you know, for me, gosh, I would love to lose 20 pounds. I lost 10 and I tried to lose 10 and I couldn't and I'm back up to that 20 pounds now. So, you know, I don't know how to do that. That possibly would be interesting to many people, but not what weaving the world is. And so, you know, what is a weaving the world topic like? What is the pattern language of weaving the world topic or weaving the world episode? Are we trying to get a diversity of views? Are we trying to get the kinds of argument that I pointed out yesterday? Who was it? Niall Ferguson and Fried Zechariah. They go back and forth. They're both intelligent. They both have good points. They're both talking about how do we deal with what I pointed out, China and how China is this huge global warming sink and how do we influence them without having a war? Or are we already at war? And do we have to accept that as a reality and just deal with it? So, you know, there's many different possibilities. Why are we doing what we want to do? I think is incredibly important. I was asked, I think it's a totally unfair question. Why are you doing your art? And I, it was just, you know, so Jerry, why are we doing weaving the world? And, you know, it's, for me, it's a start. It's kind of like, well, we can get some money to do it. We have people. We have media. We have video. We're already talking. There's ideas out there. Where do we want to develop the audience? Or what is it within ourselves that we want to push out? Or what do we want to bring towards us? I mean, there's, you know, kind of, a second, different, different, different feelings, different senses that we want to make. What is the sense we want to make, I guess? I'm asking it in many different ways. Thanks. You done? So, you just asked a bunch of really, really good questions and put a whole bunch of really juicy stuff on the table, which I appreciate lots. I'm just shifting rooms. One of the things you said that I really love is that weaving the world could be, could be, should be, I would love to be, basically a platform for media experiments that what we're setting up here ought to be amenable through its design to some of the experiments that we've already talked about kind of in our many conversations here. And there's lots of these things that I'd love to be doing. Any one of which could be considered the fruiting body of our collaborative work. It doesn't have to be that the fruiting body of the armarselial work together is an episode of a podcast. It could also be a new kind of book, a new kind of book experiment that has new manifestations and those other kinds of things. Another manifestation could be a community of practice that has a new way of creating shared knowledge, maybe running on factor. And so I can envision lots of different things and it would be nice to design in our early phase here, that kind of a platform. And it's funny this goes back to the Mali plus Picatinny rail thing because Pete, I went to that page that had like the best which is a sheet. It's partly I think a body armor, but it's also a place where you hang weapons and all that kind of stuff. And it reminded me that my dad used to have tools and we always bought what was it called the particle board with holes in it that had the little hangers. Pegboard. So he would always buy a big sheet of pegboard and hang up the pegs and then all his tools would be in a nice place and it's like they're the same kind of stuff, just different, you know, different use for a similar technology. But it would be really nice to create kind of pegboard metaphoric environment here in Weaving the World that lets us go play with these different kinds of experiments. That'd be just awesome. So I'm excited about that. That makes me really happy. That turns me on for like life work. And I think so and back and you then asked a series of really good questions like what the hell are we doing here? Why are we here doing this open global mind or weaving the worldly thing? And I my own my own motivation for being here is that I think that we don't know what we know. We don't share what we know what makes us easier to spin. We are busy, you know, rolling down the toilet bowl of history because we don't have a way of making sense of the world together. And also and paired with that is we don't trust each other and we are intentionally being driven apart from each other and we need to find our way back, which may have nothing to do with logic or any of that kind of stuff, but may have a lot to do with storytelling vulnerability and alternate forms of expression, many of which probably the most useful of which actually happened in person in human interaction, but some of which can happen through delay by creating media that tells a great story or lets you in to some emotion or whatever else. So and by the way, the latter version of that is much more easily replicated and can reach many, many more people than the former version of that, which is extremely time consumptive and human emotion, you know, not consumptive, but you puts them to work. Like the one-to-one thing is better than, but man, it's slow progress across society. Does that help? Yeah. And so just what you said and how I just answered are like really inspiring to me. Like that makes me like want to do this a lot. And also gives me ideas a little bit about how to design now for opportunity to not, you know, to do some loose coupling or late binding. Stacey in programming, there's a thing called late binding, which is when you're writing some code, you can write it for a specific purpose now, and then you lock it down, or you can write code that knows how to do A and B and C for kind of any general purposes. And it's then you can say, Oh, let's do that for the purpose of publishing a media artifact. And then, oh, let's use the same process to feed it, you know, an animal, et cetera, et cetera. And that's a bad example of binding. But I'm sure I'm sure Pete or somebody could do a much better job of that. But oh, no, I'm probably not going to click on the funky bathroom, Pete. I don't know that my morning can handle that. Favorite song of mine. Really? Really? Okay, then I might have to go see Joe's apartment then. Cool. I'm just reading what Michael wrote in the chat. Many things can be made from the same ingredients. Bingo, bingo, bingo. Each podcast is an assembly of knowledge, hypothesis opinion. The weaving is the disambiguated stuff, the different uses, the tools on the pegboard, the ingredients in the pantry. Exactly. And a piece of why I'm excited that Pete is building massive is that I think he's building piece parts that do that in really interesting ways. And one experiment I want to work toward and weave into weaving the world is, hey, let's collaboratively write a book or let's turn a presentation into a book into a website using several of the same objects, right? To show that they're just objects of knowledge in the shared space. And we can use them for lots of different purposes. And they can honor and preserve different people's opinions about materials, about whatever the subject at hand is. That sounds like fun to me. Thank you. Certainly, I believe in, well, it's kind of a silly thing to say, but I was going to say I believe in personal passion. So, you know, I would love to know why Michael does what he does, why Stacy does what she does. I would love to know why I do what I do. It's a separate kind of conundrum, possibly. But, you know, certainly, I think we're here, hopefully, to inspire each other, because every person has layers like onions, like that are unknown until that person lives in the history of the universe, never before is a Hank Kuhn, and there never will be again. And I don't know Hank and his layers, and you know, there's different intimacies that are possible between people that are on the job or in the church or in the community or on the bus or the carpool. My connection with Hank right now is very informal. And I could spend more time with Hank. I could spend more time with Jerry or Stacy, but we're limited. And I think I'm noodling now, so I'm going to pull back and zip it. That's great. And I just posted in our chat, I actually did a video called Why I Do What I Do, which I like a lot still to this day. I did it back in like 2010-ish, I think. I was just looking back on some old videos and pictures from 2010. Like, holy crap, a lot happens in a decade. At Pete, one of the picture sets that I wound up tripping through a little more than a decade ago was of the workshop I did at Hot Studio with Sarah Brooks that you were part of. You were part of that prototype. And I'm like, okay, wow, that was a thing back in the day. Anyway, Hank, were you going to jump in? Yeah, I mean, it's a stupid thought. But unless we can upload Hank, isn't there a, I mean, of course, there's not enough time. I mean, I thought Mark, your bit there was really good. And there is never enough time. And for one reason or another, Jerry and myself and Leif Edmondson have found the time one hour every week. I try to attend these calls as much as possible. And I'm now starting to do something with David. And I think Pete will also eventually be involved in some of those crazy conversations. Don't join the creative group, Pete. But I like to comment unless we can upload Hank, isn't there some way to find extra time in the week somehow digitally, virtually, whatever. I mean, I just googled James Burke's connections, which I haven't seen yet. I don't know, I sent to myself, great, but where will I find the time to watch them? And I have lists of podcasts and YouTube things I'd like to see. But can't we get more time somehow? It's a crazy thought. But somehow I thought this is a place to drop it. So maybe Weaving the World is also a metaphysics experiment. And we'll have to play with alternate dimensions or parallel lives or something like that. I don't know. I mean, one overly simplified answer to your question, Hank, is divide and conquer, which is like, how does a really good study team work in college? They get an assignment that's kind of too big for a human to do. So they break it up and they each digest the parts and they come back together and try to make something out of the hole. A thing I created for retreats years ago was the five minute university, which was, hey, you have five minutes to talk about something you have a lot of passion about, and then we have five minutes to ask you questions about it. And it doesn't have to be the thing that's in the middle of your job. It can be, you know, JP Rangaswamy did five minutes on how to make the best Bolognese sauce, right? Because he went and he ate only spaghetti bolognese at like all the restaurants in Milan or whatever city it was. And then he went to his favorite one and he said, you must tell me the recipe. And I think he held the gun to the cook's head, but I'm not sure about that. But he came back with this really interesting recipe. And I've done a couple of five minute universities, none of which are actually five minutes long and put them on YouTube, one of which is about one of my favorite books, The Great Transformation. And I try to digest the top level insights of that book in that video. And if a lot of us did this, Latherwins repeat, all of us swarming on all the media we care a lot about, we would then each find our way toward, oh, that was so interesting. I probably need to read the original or watch the original. But that would really help us sort our list, because right now my stack, I keep buying stuff on Kindle. I then scroll through my list of things I could open right now and read on Kindle. I'm like, my brain's going to blow. And that's not the Watch Later list on YouTube. That's not my pocket. I use Pocket, the little plugin app, to figure out what articles to read later. I have cues everywhere I turn, right? But I'm trying as hard as I can to digest the things that I hit that I like in a way that's useful to other people. And if more of us did that and shared it back in, I have a hunch into the big fungus, I have a hunch that we would metabolize more of this material together better, faster, and find our way to what we like. And that's just a hunch. I don't know what that study is called. Is there a discipline that worries about this? Editing. Editing. One of the things I love about pattern languages, well, it's collaborative editing of some sort. One of the things I love about pattern languages is that they are the distilled wisdom of some domain. And people who care a lot and know a lot about the domain have spent a bunch of time deglazing their insights into the pithiest form possible, which is what pattern languages try to be, so that other people can pick them up and go, oh, if I just pay attention to these top level things, my activity in this space will be much, much higher. I'll be able to sort of participate at a much higher level. And Marie Biérida, who's a dear friend and is interested in all these things, she would like to create a pattern language for unmanagement. I would love for there to be a pattern language for OGM. Like what does it mean to feed the fungus? What does it mean to work the way we work? That'd be fantastic. In Free Jerry's Brain really, really early on, Marc-Antoine Pahon customized a semantic media wiki instance for us to try to build some pattern languages. And then we got into the prototype, we started using it, and we realized a very important thing when writing pattern languages is to change the name of the patterns a lot. And it turns out that in semantic media wiki, that's really, really hard. And we just bounced off it. And it was unfortunate because he'd put a bunch of work into doing it, but we were like, ah, the tool is actually going to stop us from the kind of work we need to do together to create a pattern language. So, and Pete, I don't know how much thought you've put into this, but how to adapt massive to build pattern languages in this way would be like a fabulous thing. And I would love to devote a couple episodes of Weaving the World, and it's still to be named, shadow behind the curtain, show your notes, podcast versions, to making, to building pattern languages. That'd be awesome. And to explaining pattern languages, and to bringing word in, and whoever, like to, you know, we know a bunch of experts in all these things. Charlotte has, you know, Piragaji has been a part of OGM, and Joe, and so forth. So, sorry, I'm riffing through a bunch of different things, but they're all kind of nicely connected. One of the things I need to stress about pattern language is each pattern has an example that you can kind of simply work through yourself, see how it works, you know, in books about pattern languages or programming, there's code as an example. So, certainly, I think those of us who know pattern languages do know that, but I so want to stress that. Great. Totally great. We've gone well over our time. We're almost up on 90 minutes. Any concluding thoughts for this call? And just really thank you for thinking along with this. Yeah, can I say another crazy thing? I mean, we want to do something else with Weaving the World, which I think is terrific. And I put lots of references to the Dutch backlight experience because that's, I think, something that we should take seriously. But to me, these calls are also a kind of Weaving the World because, you know, however much we could summarize things we're thinking about, there's always stuff emerging from interactions and things people say and links that we never thought we'd think about in the last three or four years. So let's not forget that Weaving the World should also be more than the conversational, dialogical parts of it, but also the enriching parts of it before and afterwards. Absolutely. Hank, thank you. And I have learned enormous amounts from our conversations over these last almost two years at this point. And you're making me think that maybe what we have, because most of these calls are on YouTube at this point, they've been there for a while. So maybe we've already published Weaving the World, the People. And all I need to do is go like put a rapper in a bow on the earlier recordings and just call them a show. And we're like, we've been doing this. Stacey, you were about to jump in. Yeah. And I second everything that Hank just said. So this may not fit in. And I'm sure I have a different perspective, but Is it as crazy as everything Hank just said? No. But I just wanted to share from my perspective, if each of you were going to speak to me for five minutes about something, I'd really want to know about you. I'd want to know what scared you when you were growing up or what hurt you, what you regret. Those are the things and those are the things that build trust too. So, yeah, I just had to say that because it was running in my mind. So a piece of what we need to do is fold our personal experiences into this, not just our insights about other stuff. Like when I do a book report on the Great Transformation, there's not a lot of me in there. When I do the video about why I do what I do, there's a lot of me about my preferences and view of the world. There isn't a lot about what happened to me growing up for any of that. And I think those things are essential. So Stacey, thank you. I think we need to make room for that as well. The other piece I just want to say is that as a society, we have a hard time looking at the shadow. I'll say. And that creates other problems because then we can't self-correct because we don't even want to acknowledge that there's anything wrong in the first place. So I think it's all tied in there. Agreed. Cool. Any other last words? I was just going to say that I think that again, pointing to disambiguation, it's like you want to look, as Stacey was saying, that you were using the example, Jerry, of your book report and then why you do what you do and then who you are and why you're who you are as being very distinct things. But when you're reading that book report, you want to say, who is this guy, Jerry? And why is this guy, Jerry? And those being available linkage is weaving the world. It's like there's a tool on the pegboard. It's here. I can see it. Here's a list of the projects that can be used for. Here's the history of where it came from and who designed it. Things just link off in different directions. And that crazy weaving, non-weaving ability to web outward is really exciting to me. And I just want to connect that to the work that Pete did on the Thursday call of a couple weeks ago to turn that into a wiki and all that was fabulous and made me realize that he did a whole bunch of personal work and curating and editing to create a bunch of instances. But that any one of those instances could have connected into an existing page in the medium. And that that link to something that's already out in the persistent medium is a really big thing, I think. Just like, oh, I don't need to reinvent the world every instance, every time I'm note taking. I can curate notes into existing, ever-improving infrastructure, scaffolding for thinking, pegboard for ideas, whatever it might be. That little act, I think, is huge. And so let us do more of that. I was also inspired by what Pete did. Thanks, Pete. Yeah. Same. Yep. So, thank you all. Yeah. We really appreciate this. And back to now. Bye-bye. Go team pegboard. I like it.