 Well, this is the generative Commons call on Wednesday, August 11, 2021. So a couple of things, Stacey. You're describing it in a different way some stuff that's kind of already in the waters here in a couple ways. One of them is that I'm trying to figure out how to pitch people to attract money into GM, part of which is to fund internal projects that we would scope out and say, okay, if someone will build this under, you know, with these guidelines and these deliverables, then we'll actually get them real money not not not play money or cryptocurrency, which would actually also be interesting to do so and it's it's basically one of the puzzle pieces of this better all singing all dancing infrastructure we need that I don't think can be done by one platform that needs to be it needs to be a patchwork quilt. Thank you Hank for it needs to be a patchwork quilt of a variety of different pieces of software and other sorts of things and that's trying to figure out how to describe the role that OGM plays as the quilting be dance caller. If I can mix metaphors for you. And the second thing is that failing more life, who's been in a few of our check in calls and a couple and some of the jerry's free Jerry's brain calls. He has a startup that he's I think he's managed to fund called and it was called virgins AR but I said why don't you just call it XR, which is, you know, extreme reality, extended reality, whatever you want to call it but basically in the space that you just said. Oh, okay, good. So you spoke with I just saw your chat back. Exactly. And so, and so he's the closest thing in the OGM set of orbits that is doing something pretty much like what you said, and then actually third thing. What I want to talk about here is that the latest incarnation of how to make OGM actually work and actually fundable that that is in my head right now is that we run a show. So looks smells and looks like a podcast and a vlog on the surface called weaving the world. But under the surface, we're busy connecting up the ideas and mapping them connecting communities and having important conversations. And it's the process, not the end product that matters. And in so doing, we're sort of doing a reality show under the hood, because we're reporting in and working openly on everything we're doing underneath, as we weave the mycelial links in the rhizomal networks of the great estuary that is, you know, the place for moving toward, was that enough metaphors. I feel like I feel like on a metaphor per sentence, kind of metric I could do pretty well. So what about if we just step back and instead of weaving we were actually creating. Well, weaving is a form of creation. Right. And, and I think what you're saying is that when where this hits the real world is really important which is I think why you're bringing augmented reality into the the mix here, which I agree with entirely. So one of that, I think a piece of that is in fact that exploration. Now separately. I have written a draft. It's not a great draft Pete had some really good critiques of it. I've written a draft document I can share with you. Let me just find the tab and give you a link. I have written a draft of a set of challenges that I've wanted to issue to OGMers and others for a long time to basically. Here's the document. So we've, the brain has an export function so we dumped we dumped all the all the data from my brain. And it turns out that that export is a big bag of JSON objects basically tuples wrapped in in a pretty familiar wrappers. And we've put that in a database somewhere on a server. And what I'd like to do is issue a challenge to anybody who wants to come along and say, Hey, treat this data like sourdough starter. And then here's a bunch of different levels at which you might want to explore with experiment with this data. One layer at the top I put user user interface what what does it look like for a person to feed a brain like how do we make that easier faster lighter. Right now the brain is very daunting. One of the one of the brain's problems for 23 years has been uptake people look at it they're like that's kind of cool and then they don't stick. And I looked at it and I stuck immediately for 23 years, but I'm I'm weird that way. Right and other people are not necessarily, but if you bounce down a couple you'll see that a rxr is a layer inspired by a phalanx project and other things that are clearly possible. And I'm, and, and, and I had a conversation years ago with a fellow from Google who was a hardware engineer in the Google Glass team. And we figured out very quickly that the Google Glass as it was living then this is the Google Google had already deprecated the project in public, but they were still working on it, you know, inside. And we figured out pretty clearly there's not enough resolution in Google Glass to use fully use the brain out in the world. But then we had a really interesting conversation about what would that be like. What would it be like if you had knowledge of your geolocation, and then you could identify objects and people in front of you. What if your context could show up around you as you moved in the world what if you could annotate the world as Phalan is doing and a bunch of other things right that's kind of interesting even just right there. So that layer of this free Jerry's brain challenge experiment is meant to be. Hey, everybody, you could add in some you could use machine learning to add in location data metadata you could use pattern recognition whatever to figure out where you are and what you're looking at, and then go to town with with what's going on here and actually weave this information into the world and leave and leave a trail like the path makers that that virgins is wants to put in the world right as a game. And, and if we do all this right, then the data layer at the bottom of these layers kind of the data layer winds up being fed and nurtured by everybody doing this because instead of. And I don't think Phil and I have talked about at this at this length but with that with with luck if this is designed right. If you look at this new trails in Phalan's game that data isn't kept in a proprietary game database that data actually is put out into the data commons where I can look at it with the brain and sort of and map it in and connect it, and you could look at it with the brain or Miro or whatever and still use that data that's being left around it would be a shared asset. Right, that that from the perspective of Phalan's game would look like an extended reality experience in the world, but then all that rich, all that rich data all the markers that are left in the world would be for all of us to sort of use in more interesting ways. And that's so that's like eight things sorry I went down for for all the different things, but, but what you're saying fits all of these things, which are kind of around us. Few of which are actually real things yet right I haven't funded or started weaving the world yet. And then one last thing, the thing that weaving the world would be weaving is the big quills. And I think I think that that then, you know, I think that that then is the separate shared commons assets for the world, and our name for it would be something like the big quilt, somebody else might call it something else. But that would help us kind of separate the podcast show thing from the asset itself, the shared asset meant to be for the commons. And one of the nice things about lines Berg and being a spawn C is that we could very credibly stand up a big quilt foundation for us to go do that. Oh, and the last thing I wanted to add I wanted to go back to the top to the GM fund, which is the pitch that I've got developed so far is, hey, up to half a million dollars would be a budget where we could set up where we could set up a bunch of projects to fund that would build some of the missing pieces and what we see. If we get more than that up like let's say another half million up to a million. That goes into an OGM fund, which goes to organizations that have projects that are building out parts of this so I think it's it's kind of what you were saying earlier it's a, it's a, it's a, an entrepreneurial investment fund for the commons and for companies to design their products toward the commons. Yeah, I just want to repeat what I said before the recording and I want Hank to hear it. I want to, because also keep in mind, I'm focused on the muggles. So the part of that you just explained, that's for, you know, the back end. But now on the front end, I had mentioned tank that I was thinking about the way I would describe it is across between the apprentice and American Idol, where regular people can come and pitch their projects. And, you know, depending on who wins, you know, who's who has the best pitches, they then lead a team of the other people who didn't win so they're still in the game. So you have all these people coming, and they get profiled so we're weaving stories will learn, you know, we make sure, you know, we design it so that we're handpicking people that are involved in different social causes as well. You know, it's all it's all designed like Jerry didn't like that I had to use the apprentice but I think that we actually have to, because it's proven success, we just have to use it with the morality built into it. The ethics built in. Yeah, I think it's really interesting. I sort of started taking my own notes here. When you were describing three teams and I got the first team was building an augmented reality video game the second team, building an educational system did you say. But that's where we'd have more of the academics the storytellers the creative writers, the people interested in producing films. You know, and that, you know, that would take care of those types of creative endeavors, whereas like Fallon's project would work more with the technical people. Yeah, but it would all tie in and it would all crisscross and then we have our community. Can you explain to me the relationship between the video game and the educational system. Basically it's just a way to create two different projects that I think will be able to tie in all these loose ends is the educational system. The game or similar to Jerry's interwoven podcast and the reality show for knowledge. No, I'll give you an example of something that I was going to actually talk to Barry court about today, something that I think that I might want to try and do on my own. It's this this is actually about storytelling so for example, this would be like for little kids. Let's take the the story of Cinderella. And let's put in, you know, different emotional overlays and let people recreate parts of their own story. But this is I can't explain this here it's too complicated but this is the work that he's done. And I think that with his help, we could put together the best team, I wouldn't be doing it. The only thing I'd be doing is putting together the best team to do that work. Is this the right story. I don't see you anymore. Oh, sorry, I just screen sure. Is this the right very. Yes. Please say hi. I would like to talk to him in ages and if you'd be fun if you want to join the OGM conversation, etc, etc, but I will absolutely ask him to come where pretty friendly. Cool. Cool, cool, cool, cool, cool. Thank you. Did you have other thoughts or questions? I, as always, I'm listening and trying to make a picture in my mind that makes sense to me as a sort of non tech person oriented to things that will make society better. And I think what I've heard from both of you relate to that. I'm trying to see are they. Let me go to the OGM fund, which is really interesting. But all of the things in your list of challenges Jerry are too, too technical for me, but I'm sure all of them are worth doing. They're meant to be technical. This is for you. This is a geeks challenge at various different different levels of design. Exactly. What's interesting is that Stacy your challenge is not necessarily a geeky challenge. I'm just trying to figure out how I would phrase it to my non techie friends who are so on techie they would never think of joining OGM calls. It would be it would make the world better more interesting give it more quality or something like that. Oh, is that a question. Yeah, but it's sort of talking out loud saying, I'm wondering I can't get see, but I have feeling it's there someplace. How would your, let's say your, your mix of apprentice and American idols benefit America or knowledge workers or our grandchildren or something like that. But for the non techie people, it's creating a show that actually educates as it connects, and as it weeds in all of those wonderful values that we want, but it also uses our natural competition but channels it in a cooperative way. I'm just trying to see a Barry wants to come on now. Stacy, you were there. Were you there weren't you there on yesterday's. I was community food service. I wasn't there. I missed that. It started off very interesting and then became a very frustrating experience. And I got an insight after after it finished. And I was triggered by something you said a few minutes ago, you're not going to do it. You want to put the team, the right team together to do it. And that seemed to be a big sticking point yesterday and maybe you agree or disagree Jerry. Some people were saying that the nine people on the call were the team to do it. Others were saying, this is not the team to do it. We have to find the team to do it. And I'm just wondering if that's not really something on a meta level for an OGM fund or for OGM in general is exactly that for whatever somebody wants to do like Klaus wants to do that and Stacy you want to do that and I've got things I'd like to do and everyone has things they want to do. Can OGM benefit the world by getting the right people together and giving them the ball and then they run with it. And yesterday's call was kind of messy and bumpy it seemed. And one of the many issues was what is it. Right. Is this the right time to do is this the right team to do it. Well, depending on what the it is and, and, you know, the people who happen to be on the food systems call yesterday were a mix like some people on the ground in different parts of the world like trying to actually do food systems work. Other people coming from a very entrepreneurial perspective other people systems thinkers etc. And, and my, my own conclusion was, we have to go through some kind of analytic process to figure out what the it is where we're where this group of humans not a team yet is going to apply its energy in what form. Once we identify the it, then build a team around the it. And that that would mean very likely recruiting some new people in with new skills, etc, etc, etc. And then there'd be a team that that sort of going after that particular thing. And, and the idea of the OGM fund is pretty much what you described. It's like, hey, how do we help form up these ventures and fund them. And, and how do we. And, and I don't know if this is necessarily true but how do we help form up the the commons benefiting parts of all these ventures that don't necessarily have a business model canvas and the business model, but that we think, if we add these ventures to even commercial offers. The world will be better off at the end. Yeah, right. Yeah, how do we how do we help. How do we help weave the parts that help nurture the commons grad Stacy. I'm sorry I'm trying to Barry's asking me for the zoom and I don't know how to send it I'm going through all my old emails hold on hold on. I can give you an invite I can copy. Can you put it in his Facebook messenger. Can you just copy and paste that link that I just put in. Yeah, for whatever reason I was having now that. Okay, this was another thing I was going to ask you about. Yeah, something happened to my computer and when I click on these links, it won't click I'm going to try. I just copy and paste it don't don't click it right now just copy it and then paste it into your chat with Barry. I know but it's not it's just saying select all and then it selects the whole entire chat. Thank you can't drag your mouse across. Wait, wait, wait, wait. No, I don't know why it's. I'll just I'll figure it out. Hold on let me go find Barry. Thank you. Let me tell him you're sending. Yeah. Facebook. Cool. Thank you. Thank you. Come on slow machine. Why are you not finding Barry. If you stay see if you give me a WhatsApp or an email address email the link to you. 27. Whoa, is that that's that's what's up to seven notes. It's Gmail or Gmail to seven. Yeah, open heart. Yeah, Gmail.com. So I just I just gave him the link in the zoom in messenger so we're good if he should be, he should be joining us momentarily. And I didn't even get to run this idea by him. Good. I was going to do it later today. I was going to do it. I was going to do it. I was going to do it. I was going to do it. I was going to do it. I was going to do it. So yeah, Hank, to your point, I, you know, I want to go back and I don't understand. You know what the problem was. But the way this whole idea works together and to have the two different tracks. Sort of solves for who does what and that kind of thing. It's sort of separate. Hey, Barry. Hey, Barry. Barry. Oh, you got a haircut. Yeah. Yeah. So we're offering a $9 haircut. So I went in. I used to get $10 haircuts at Astor place in New York. There's like a big basement barber shop with like 50 chairs in it. Yeah. Usually they're like 20 bucks or something. I think less for seniors, but for $9, you know, and, and a tip, it's not. It couldn't pass it out. No weight. So we're in the middle of a very interesting conversation. This call is being recorded just so you know. Cool. And my habit is to post them on YouTube and a few people like a dozen people might watch it later. And we're busy brainstorming. Stacy brought an idea into the conversation that marries nicely to a series of ideas that have been happening in OGM. So open global mind is a thing that started at the beginning of the 19th century. So it's, you know, 16, 18 months old now. And is about being open minded and is about building a global brain and is sparked partly by my 23 years of feeding, you know, the brain, et cetera, but then has a whole bunch of other aspects to it because one of the beliefs behind open global mind is that emotion and membership Trump reason most of the time. And so I think that's what's happening in the brain or in Kumu or in something else with evidence that let like nobody would deny, but if agreeing with me meant you would be rejected by your tribe, you would happily gaslight me and say next. And that's happening. That's like, that's what our world looks like right now. Right this minute. And so, and so I think there's this value in both, this clearly value in both sides, this value in trying to figure out how science could affect science could affect everything. And then how do we bridge the divides that that separate us that make us unable to trust each other enough to even look at or use the, you know, the information. And so we're trying to do a little bit all at once. And Stacey, if you want to play tag team and sort of pick up a little bit and put whatever parts of that you want to put back into the conversations to catch very up. I actually want to answer Hank and Barry might get something from it. Okay. If I just remember my trouble to reload that back in your brain. Oh, so getting to the thing with the personalities. The idea of putting it into game form is everybody gets to play their own way. That's how it's designed. And that's the important piece. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, one, one additional question. Is it the zero sum game with winners and losers or does everyone win? Well, that's the thing. Everybody can win, but also everybody can win to a different degree. And it's really so, I mean, you can, you can. Let's say you start off doing something your own way. And you see somebody over there seems to be having a much easier time. You can go and make an agreement to join them, but the group has their rules. And so if you want to go there and they wear masks, you have to wear a mask, but you have a choice to not, not wear a mask. Yeah. Yeah, clear. The main part of this and Barry knows bits and pieces because he knows I was trying to work on something with Michael Seppowitz that had something to do with a game show. It was part reality. It was part research action project. So the idea really is creating a space that everybody can try out their hand at whatever it is they think they want to do, but they're doing it in community. And there's a fun to it. There's a competition, a creativity. And everybody gets involved. They see this is where the game part comes in, in terms of dealing with the muggles. They can weigh in the same way you like a post. So you're voting in that way. And everybody, every mother knows that the way to get a picky eater to eat is to help them create the meal. Where I'm coming from on this. That makes sense. And or to hide the broccoli. I don't, but that's the thing. Society has always tried to hide the broccoli. People like me, we don't want to be manipulated. We don't want to be lied to Barry knows I'm always saying, I hate this idea of hiding things in stories. Interesting. And so very partly we're, we're playing with like how to, how to create projects that can actually do these things in the world. And OGM is currently a fiscal spawn C of a 501 C three called lion's bird, which is a fan of steward ownership. Are you familiar with steward ownership? Okay, I hadn't either. Steward ownership is an interesting ownership model that is meant to be durable and hard to sort of hard to take over. It's a kind of impervious to hostile takeovers, et cetera. The simple version is there's a nonprofit that owns all of the shares of a for profit. So 501 C three owns all the shares of a C corp. So anyone who joins this, there's no discussion about who gets diluted who gets more shares because all the shares are actually in the nonprofit. You can pay salaries. You can, and on top of this platform, you can do for profit ventures or for benefit ventures and, and also like foundational ventures, all of that, you know, this platform is good for a variety of kinds of business models. And it's really hard to take over unless you lose control of the foundation of your own 501 C three. And so lion's bird is, has, has, is trying to bring a bunch of other entities into this kind of ecosystem where these sorts of platforms exist. And then, and then it's trying to foster a series of, of entities that are building different parts of the modern ecosystem. And they, you know, I had a conversation with the founder of lion's bird guy named Jordan. Some months ago during lockdown, you know, in a zoom. And he saw that some of the stuff that open global mind was doing was of the nature of it would feed the ecosystem he was looking for. It would make a really good candidate to be on this journey. So that's kind of where we've been. And I'm at the stage now where, where we are a fiscal sponsor of his charity at this 501 C three, which means we can raise grant funds for a charity. And I'm still trying to figure out what is it that I'm pitching for? Cause. In our very interesting conversations inside of OGM, this thing has sort of morphed. It's a little bit like nailing jelly to a tree, which is the title of a book way back when. And at this point, sort of my best answer to that is that I'm pitching a show that looks a little bit on the surface, like a vlog or a podcast called weaving the world. In which we're actually trying to go visit people who, who've got world world solutions. And we're applying kind of OGM a skills to their ideas. You know, it starts as an interview that looks like everybody else's million podcasts out there, but then we take it apart and we start connecting, you know, and under, under the ground, we're busy creating the connections between those ideas and the rest of the ideas. That other people have made. We're asking the boundary questions. We're connecting communities that seem to be working on the same thought. We're sort of doing work to enrich the idea. In kind of a reality show under, under the ground. Where we're working openly and recording and posting our calls. So anybody can come see how that work got done and be along for the ride for the building of a new environment within which the, the commons is fed. We can make a living sort of together by being in this environment, all those kinds of things. What does OGM stand for? Open global mind. Open global mind. Okay. Well, that's a lot to chew on in three or four minutes. I know. The one thing I will say about games because the study of games goes back, as you probably know to John Forbes Nash, who studied the very simplest example of a game, the two person zero sum game. And it's the one that was most completely analyzed understood. And, and John Forbes Nash provided a. A theory and a theorem. For how to optimally play a two person zero sum game. And after that it became much more challenging to consider the multi person. Non zero sum game, which is still game. And the key thing about a game. Is that the objective is inherently defined in the game itself. There's a scoring system of some sort in the game. And the scoring system defines the objective. If you relax the notion that the game defines the objective. Then you enlarge the concept of the game to something that is more commonly known as a drama. In a drama you can have two or more characters. But each one has their own independent objective. And then the objectives are not exactly equal and opposite as they would be in a game. So in a classical game, whatever I gain the other guy loses it's equal and opposite, but in a drama the characters can have their own arbitrary objectives. And so I want to go this way. And the other guy maybe wants to go that way. So they're not equal and opposite. And they do have some overlap, but they also have some opposition. And so when you allow the objectives and the values of the players to be their own personal values and objectives, then it's, it's not a game. It's a drama. And what's interesting is that you can take the mathematical concepts that John Forbes Nash introduced with his minimax theorem and this, all this mathematics. And you can, you can generalize the, the theory to, to a drama theory model, which is, which essentially is an expansion of, of the mathematics of John Forbes Nash. And I actually gave the theorem a name. And I'll explain the name in a minute. But if I have a value, something I really want, the opposite of that is something I don't want. It's something I dread. So if you take, now it's, it's easier to think about fears than desires, but fears and desires are essentially the opposite. Whatever I fear, don't want. If I take 180 degree opposite of that, then I really want that because that moves me maximally away from what I don't want towards what I do want. One of the ways that you can characterize characters in a drama is what do they fear? And what do they desire? If you watch Lucifer on Netflix, you'll notice that Lucifer asks people what they, I can't remember. One, one of them, the twins, one of them asks what you do, what's your greatest desire? They don't want to ask what's your greatest fear, but they're really the same question. So one day I was in the airport waiting for an airplane. And I, I wandered past the bookstore and I saw a book title by Tom Clancy, you know, the, the spy novelist. And the title on the cover was the sum of all fears. And that got me thinking because first of all, the sum of all sounds like a mathematical beginning. I was like an integral, yeah. Yeah. So I thought, well, suppose you have a cast of characters and you have idiosyncratic fears, which are not aligned and not opposite, but they're sort of random directions. How do you, how do you take that and make that into a drama? And so one of the ways to think about it is instead of an axis, imagine that I've got a plane. So I'll put all the fears in a two dimensional plane. It's easier to model it than in more than two dimensions. I'll put each character around the perimeter of the circle. And on one direction from the center is their fear of the other direction is their desire, their opposite desire. So now instead of a teeter totter, which is what you have in the two person game, you have a wobbly plate. And in order for the drama to have continuity, the net vector sum of all fears has to balance to out to zero. So that the action will wobble around, but you won't have the whole thing being blown over by one character overpowering all the others. So this continuity theorem, I call it Clancy's theorem. And I take the hint from Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote a play called Much Ado About Nothing. So the vector sum of all fears has to net balance to zero, but it's dynamic. So the plate wobbles and that's your action. So what happens is one character does an action and that triggers another character somewhere on the other side of the plate. And that character reacts, but their reaction doesn't necessarily trigger the first character. It might go off at a black angle and trigger a third character who then reacts to that. And that reaction triggers a fourth character. And so this kind of ping pong thing goes around the plate, but eventually it has to close on itself. And each time around it's a different sequence. But so this is the vector sum of all fears is zero is essentially the extension of the Nash equilibrium. And it's easy to see it in two dimensions. You can do it in as many dimensions as you like. You could have a sphere. You could put the characters like these colored points on a sphere. And again, each one acts and it causes another one to react. And so it's sort of ping-pongs around inside the sphere. You can go to as many dimensions as you like. So how does that play out in human entertainment or edutainment? And the answer is games and simulations. In a simulation, you can have more than one character, humans or non-player characters. Did somebody say something? I thought we were frozen. So in a simulation where you have human characters and non-player characters, each one has to have an idiosyncratic set of fears and desires. And that generates this ping-pong effect, which generates a drama and it has to obey Clancy's theorem or else it comes to a screeching halt. So go ahead, Stacy. So I just want to give a real-world example, because I was going to go to you later and actually ask you, imagine we were playing this game. The goal of the game is to create the most flourishing economy that's sustainable. So as me, Stacy, the contestant, I'm going to go to Barry, because I really am going to do this anyway, and I'm going to say to you, I have an idea for being able to do something using the fairy tale of Cinderella along with your whole, you know, your whole model, whatever, your whole theory on the emotions of cognition and learning. And so what I'm coming to you to say is, I have somebody like Jen in mind to be on that team. And I would go to Jerry and OGM and say, do we know anything, anybody who does educational software? And you would tell me who that is, and we would meet them. There'd be a profile, whatever. There might be a few people. And after everybody gets to know each other, they can form into their little teams of what their project for this game or this competition is going to be. Now along the way, if I'm not, I know I'm going to pick, I think I'm the best director, let's say, for argument sake. We all think we're the best director. So I get to direct my show and my show is the team. And I am picking to lead the team, Dr. Barry Court. And I am picking, you know, so and so, and I am picking so somebody else for business that I, that, you know, like when you go on Shark Tank and you, you know, that kind of a thing. That's where the game comes in, but that's where people's personal passions come in. And that's where the drama comes in too, because we're being watched. That's the reality TV show aspect of it. So conflicts are going to arise and that could bring up, bring in a whole, I mean, there's so many different sprouts that could come off of this. That's why it's so difficult to talk about. Yeah, I'll stop. So you talked about. Optimum economy, I think was the term used. Well, I want to use the term sustainable economy. Okay. So let's talk about that for a minute, because I want to show, I want to show a slide here. Let's see if share screen is working. Okay. So let's see. Are you seeing a slide that says multiple interlinked economies? Yeah. Okay. So usually when people think of an economy, where's my mouse? They typically think of the classical material economy, the exchange of goods and services for, for money. Okay. And that's the economy that economists mainly study, but an economy is actually the flow of some kind of commodity within some kind of a system. And it doesn't necessarily have to be material economy. So for example, we live in an information economy. We exchange bits of information back and forth. And part of the information economy. And Jerry, you might recall back in one of your workshops, I think in the late nineties, one of the, one of the participants says, attention is the most scarce resource in the economy. I don't know if you can remember. Could well be that that's a theory I'm not fond of. Yes. So anyway, so there's an information and attention economy because for example, you know, in the advertising, they, and sponsors, they, you know, they compete for attention. And so there's this information and attention economy, which is much more abstract. And then there's this entertainment and drama economy, two more economies. And finally, there's the one that I work on, which is the emotions and learning economy. And let's see, do I have one more in the bottom here? And we just see. Yeah. And then there's the spiritual economy. Okay. Now, here's, here's the idea. If you know anything about electromagnetic field theory, you know that a changing electric field can induce a magnetic field. And a changing magnetic field can induce an electric field. And so there's a, there's a back and forth between electricity and magnetism, which James Clerk Maxwell found the mathematics for. And so he basically showed that you can have this wonderful mathematical model of two systems, electricity and magnetism interacting in a way. Well, now it's, I don't know if you can see my little inset. It's like a slinky. Okay. But now look at these multiple economies. The material economy has some activity. And flows and fluctuations in the, in the material economy. And flows and fluctuations in the material economy can induce fluctuations and flows in the information and attention economy. Because they're not independent. And flows and fluctuations in the information and attention economies can induce fluctuations and flows in the entertainment and drama economies right on down the line. So these economies are interlinked much the same way the electricity and magnetism are interlinked. That is activity in one will funnel on down the line through this sequence of economies, just like a slinky. So when you talk about a game or a simulation that involves economies, you have to take into account that it's not just one of those economies. It's all of them are in play. And some people will be focusing on how much money can I get. And in the game, a children's game called life. And the three goals were money. Fame. And happiness. And you could decide how much of each you wanted. Well, the same thing kind of applies here that different participants will be seeking different amounts of these items. And you don't, you don't know in advance which character is really looking for this payoff and which character is really looking for some insight, some, you know, some epiphany, you know, some enlightenment, or which one is looking for attention or which one is looking, you know, to be the entertainer or the one who's the who's the great dramatist. So when you think about real life politics and science and religion and philosophy and all that kind of stuff, or even a simulated game, you really have to say all of these among the characters. And to the extent that you can reckon and recognize the interactions among these, you can become a better player in whichever economy you're mainly investing your time and energy in. I think I'll stop there because that's probably a lot to think about. So I won't say too much more until we get some reaction. What I just put in the chat is that this particular game, the way I'm envisioning it, it's designed so that the current, the dominating currency is actually fun and fulfillment. It's set up that way. Emotional satisfaction. Exactly. And the rest will come. So it combines all those economies that you just had on that chart. Right. I'm not sure fulfillment equals emotional satisfaction in my head. Well, the way I'm trying to express it, it does. Okay. Ask yourself the question, are we having fun yet? Exactly. Yeah, but fulfillment to me isn't just emotional. Oh yeah, fulfillment has a certain, does it give meaning of purpose to life itself? Is it not just a diversion? Right. Just an escape from the humdrum, but am I actually growing in character so that I feel more connected to the world and more connected to the cosmos or whatever you want to call it? So there's fulfillment as spiritual fulfillment as well as economic. Do I have material well-being, but I have emotional well-being. Right. So the reason it was put into a game, though, is to allow for that indoctrination to how we feel about money to be taken out of the equation. That's the main purpose of making it a game. It's not that it's not purposeful and that it won't do some really great things. It won't do amazing things, but that's why I say we're actually creating the world. What would an imaginary world look like that we created that's designed to create this kind of economy? And to just add one thing that might make it clear, this idea started with a question. What would an economy designed to support cultural creatives look like? And that's where this whole idea of this game slash reality show came into play. Yeah. So what the drama does, it creates a story. I mean, the record of the drama is a story and a really good story has legs. It not only is it a story for the participants, there's also an audience who would be interested in attending in the mode of an audience, the story. So a lot of times the best stories come out of real experiences where people take an actual experience and then they morph it into a nice compact, succinct story to get rid of all the nonsense. The parts that matter are there. And so in an hour and a half, you can get the substance of the story and not all of the noise that sort of disrupted the flow of the story. Yeah, you do it now in a video clip of three to five minutes. Exactly. Yeah. So this is one of the problems with these zoom sessions, especially in this group that I'm in with Stacy global challenges, collaboration, GCC. They have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours, something like, I don't know, a dozen hours a week, weekend and week out. And it's, it's mostly noise. I mean, if you go back and say, where in this thousands of hours is there any content, substantive content? It's, it's like a needle in the haystack. It's in there, but you'd have to process the most tremendous amount of, of a dialogue to find the, the gems. So what might you do to call out those gems? Well, one of the, one of the indicators that you're at a gem is that the emotional impact runs high. Great. And for at least one character, at least one participant has a strong high, high energy, emotional reaction. And you can say, we're here and there are people who are just going along, they're chatting and they're not saying anything interesting when we're all the eyes are glazing over, we're bored to tears. You know, this word to give or session. This is, this is the word where Senator Lindsey Graham can talk for 20 minutes and not say a damn thing. So where's the part where people come alive. And so one of the problems is what kind of an automaton can, can study thousands of hours of video and find the parts where people come alive. High energy and, and, and identify the emotion that's, that's in play. That's, I mean, I don't, I don't know if that's even possible today's AI, maybe it is. So I mean, one simple thing that I've wished for is, you know how, when they're, when they're doing market research on whether a TV program is working, they have like a little emotionometer that they give viewers and you turn the dial whether like also when they're watching debates, like, oh, this is exciting. This is not exciting, whatever. But what if there was a, what if there was a much more interesting and useful sort of little control panel where when you hit something that was, that was just noteworthy, you would tap a button or, or click a tag or something rather, there would be some artifact where you could note, Hey, this is meaningful. And then you could also look at of all the participants on this particular zoom. If more than one of them had a moment at that moment, that's an important moment. So you sort of use collective information to call the pieces. And then, I mean, during just a bit of it. That's, let me just share screen for a second. So, so during this call, I have been curating. And so here's drama theory, your page from your website at MIT. Here you are, Barry. I haven't updated you in a long time. But I've now got you under drama theory, which I didn't have in my brain at all. I didn't have Nigel Howard in my brain before, but I did have operations, research and theories and drama. And then you mentioned that drama theory was inspired by much ado about nothing, which is a Shakespeare play, which was already in my brain. And also inspired by seeing the cover of John Clancy's book, the sum of all fears, which remarkably I didn't have in my brain yet. And that was like, Jesus, seriously. And I didn't have the movie, the sum of all fears, but I did have Ben Affleck in my brain. And so here's Ben. And so hold on, beach balling, because my computer's like running hot. There we go. So here's Ben Affleck, right? With Jennifer Garner and his brother Casey, and so on and so forth. Ben Affleck is the single word noun for the couple. And that's next to other couples that have single names like Dick and Liz, and Tomcat and so forth. Anyway, and these are other movies that Ben was in. So I'm busy doing that during our call. And if what I was doing was time stamped and coordinated with the call, which it ain't, that would then allow multiple participants in the call and anybody viewing the call later to create a rich and interesting annotation of what's going on, right? So here's Clancy's theorem, which I haven't put an explanation in, but I added it. So I'm going to connect that to some of all fears and actually Tom Clancy probably. But, and here's your correctly onion layer character model, which I didn't like download into it, but I saw it on the page because I've got your page here in my browser, right? Because I went and looked up drama theories, right? Okay. So I'm doing this curation during the call. And I do this all the time. Pete Kaminsky is a really, really great Maven on calls. He's not curating shared memory, but he has the uncanny capacity to go discover something, research it quickly, and then put the best possible links back into the group. And that, and he, I think he calls that context weaving. And I think that's a skill people need. Yeah. So, so part of what I think this show could illustrate is what it's in fact like to have ongoing conversations and to do project work and do whatever. And then to call out the gems and weave them into a bit of an Indra's net. Indra's net. Indra's net is this sort of a long ago concept that there are little, little nuggets of wisdom that are woven into a large context or the glass bead game or what does a bunch of sort of different metaphoric ideas about what this might be like. Words of wisdom. Yeah, exactly. But how do we how do we weave them into a context that is easily accessible to people more accessible than that brain thing, because I just gave you a tour through the brain, which when I give you a tour makes sense probably. But if somebody just drops in there by themselves, they're like, man, there's a lot of words here. So we're trying to solve for some of that. By the way, that that are that in psychopathy article that you showed a bit of that I showed a bit of the the emotions and learning model, the drama theory model, the the interlinked economies model. That's all in one page on Google sites. But it's on Google sites from the original version. And Google is changing Google sites to a new system. The conversion is a disaster. Well, they got rid of the side nav menus. I'm a huge fan of Google sites. I use it all the time to build simple sites. And I've actually grown fond of the new of the new flavor. My point is, is that I don't know how badly munched that art that article will become when when I'm forced to switch over to the new version, which I think the deadline is this fall. Could well be you might just want to like grin and bear it and go give it a try. And you might be able to roll back or still find the old version or just export the old website and put it in something else. What I may do is save it as a PDF. Because it's not just that article. I got a ton of stuff on Google sites. I bet. Some pages map over to the new version. Okay, some a disaster. Yeah. So I just let you know that that that page may end up becoming badly munched. So that page being the page of drama theory on your MIT site. No, it's actually on Google sites. Yeah, yeah, because this does not look like a Google sites page at all. It's not like a straight up nine HTML page from 1994. Oh, no, the Google the. I wrote the, I wrote the summary article on Google know the competitor to Wikipedia. Google know ran for like three years and they shut it down. Yeah. So everything got ported over to WordPress, but WordPress was frozen. You didn't dare edit it. Yeah. Then it would fall apart. So then I ported that over to Google sites. Yeah. And then I got to Google sites around 2011. Yeah. It's been fine on Google sites. I can edit it and update it all that. But now it's in danger of having the same damn problem. I tried so hard to love WordPress and failed entirely. I tried for a decade and a half to love WordPress. Still do not like WordPress. I will give you. I'll give you the link to the old version of the current version on. Perfect. I've been working on the, you know, the editing of it. And. I don't know if I, if I gave you that link, if you could even see it with that, I'm going to tell you in a second. Yes. That's the old version. Shows up as a page. Yeah. So if this is a straightforward one, you're not using nav bars or anything like that. I should think that if you just move this over, it will not hurt a thing because this is just one big block of. Of content. When I, when I did, when I did the trial. Where I can edit, you know, before I. You know, click the switch over button. Yeah. Let me see if I, I don't, I don't know. I don't know if it will let you look at this. You mean to edit it very likely, not unless you give me permission to come in and do that, but I'm. Because it's the. Yeah, I have to request access, but if you. I've been trying to fix all the articles on Google sites before I say, okay, go ahead and switch. And it, it is a disaster. Some articles are okay. Some are just a mess. Yeah, yeah. And I don't know how good this is going to be. So I will note, we've. I will note we've gone our hour. And I want, no, that's okay. This call is set for an hour on Wednesdays. Stacy, I just wanted to check in with you and see where you are with all this, because we've gotten lots of different directions from the starting point. I just want to get back to Hank's point. So right now you guys, Jerry and Barry or whoever, you'd be doing all this tech stuff. You'd be focused on that, but people like Hank and myself or who else we'd be writing stories, creating the show. And then there could be a whole nother team that's doing the hypothetical business agreements. You know, so it's, it's just, it really is creating a world and we'd be doing it. And the last part I left out is halfway through this process. We do have two different team leaders and it does become a competition, but there are no losers in that sense because we all own the show. So there are no losers. Hank, go ahead. No, let me digest that for a moment. Okay. Okay. So, so Stacy, you're sort of trying to preserve the popularity and simplicity of combat style shows like The Apprentice, while creating a non-zero sum environment where the game, are you familiar with the concept of finite and infinite games? I can imagine what it is. So there's a writer named James Kars who wrote a thin but good book called finite and infinite games years ago. And a finite game is played by rules with titles and has a known conclusion and there's a winner. An infinite game. Basically it's like Calvin Ball. All the rules are changeable and the goal of the game is to continue playing the game. And infinite games are more interesting. They're more compelling, you know, et cetera, et cetera. But our world is structured for finite games. Like employment is a finite game. One person holds the title of VP of marketing at a time. That person has rank and authority and responsibility that other people don't hold and can command other people to do things. So your traditional corporation is designed sort of as a finite game. And I think there's an interesting boundary here. And I don't know if game theory is looked into this very, but into how to turn more of our shared life experience into an infinite game where the commons is enriched as we go, rather than zero-sum games where the commons is sequestered and depleted as we go, which is the model we got. Like capitalism is a finite game as it's designed presently. It doesn't need to be, I don't think, but it is. Like right now, it absolutely is. It's like monopoly. Monopoly was designed as a send of capitalism. One person has all the wealth the game ends. And everybody else is in poverty. Yeah. It was a critique. It was a gorgeous critique of early capitalism. And that totally failed. It became the model of capitalism. Right. And the fact that one person ends with 100% of the wealth, and everybody else ends up bankrupt, was seemed lost on the players of the game. Totally lost. Yeah. That was like, I won. I won. You're destitute. I won. It comes to an end. So the never ending story, the never ending game is the one that doesn't have a final conclusion. Right. As soon as you finish a chapter, it sets the stage for the next chapter. Shakespeare says the past is prologue. So the previous round of the game sets the stage for the next advanced layer. It's like each meta layer. Each layer of abstraction. But as the, as the layer of abstraction get more and more abstract, you lose more and more players because they can't process increasingly higher levels of abstraction. When you get up to sort of the, the divinity layer of abstraction, you've lost practically everybody. It's like that at the end of one of my favorite movies, Shakespeare and Love, when Queen Elizabeth says to master Shakespeare. Next time, perhaps something a little lighter or comedy, perhaps maybe a shipwreck or something. Anyway, I actually have to, I actually have to book you from here, but, but Stacey, thank you for starting this. Thank you for luring Barry into our, into our next. Yes, please. Real quick, I just want to say that's why this game is an experiment. And that's why at the end it comes down to two teams because it'll be the leader that thinks we have to do it old school that this is the way it has to be. And then on the other side, it will be the leader that says, no, we can try something different. And then we can see which one works. Why only two? Because that's at the end because the whole, I mean, optimally, everybody would want to be on one. That would be what we'd really want, but we want to leave room for people that want to do things differently. And here we can bring in Doug Rushkoff and his idea of team human. Oh yeah. Thank you for a great call. Yeah. And this could be episode zero of the whole series. Absolutely. Where it began. All right. Thank you. I will post the recording. Barry, if you're okay with it, I'm going to add you to the Google group that represents the OGM conversation. And then in that, I'll send you a link to the matter most, where you matter most is a slack like thing. I don't know if you're using either slack or matter most, but on matter most, we have a bunch of frothy discussions like our, our conversations are happening over on matter most. So I'll send you a link. You just register for a free account. And you can then find us talking merrily away on different topics and different channels on matter most. Super. And, and lovely to be reconnected with you. So it's been a while. It's been a gift. And now my, now you're, you're, your brain location is more is richer is the richer for it. So thank you. Thank you. Bye guys. Bye bye.