 And before going into organization project mode, just go into how do we make this a safer space mode? And I'm a level. When you say this, I wonder if you mean this call or the mailing list or OGM or, I mean the OGM space in general, meaning probably mostly this call, but really so much of our activity happens on the OGM Google group, so I mean that as well. And I mean sort of all aspects of what is purportedly open global minded has been well critiqued in the last couple of weeks, mostly on the mailing list as, hey, we're not exactly open, we're not exactly open minded, we're not exactly any of those things. And I would like us to be more so. And I think a piece of that is the default settings on what constitutes controversy or nonsense on the part of left leaning people. Gil's asking, how is it not safe on the chat? Eric is asking, how do I define safe? Those are excellent questions. I think Gil not safe means, hey, I think X might actually be a fact worth considering being dismissed by 80% of the participants in the room means it's not safe to say, hey, I think X might be worth considering. And what happens then is there are side channels and there are people who ping each other and like, hey, what you said was great, but I'm not gonna say that in public. And it would be really, really nice if OGM were a space where we could say things in public and figure out how to catch them nicely and cleanly and put them someplace where we can inspect them more objectively than we have been. Because there's sort of an OGM leans left, there's a progressive consensus ish here and I'm probably overstating that, but I may be understating that, but it's basically the elephant in the room that we're not dealing with. And I think that any project we undertake to try to do some of this better needs to go hand in hand with more work, inner work on my part, together work on our part to do that, to make it so that we can do that. So Pete, please. Thanks, Jay. I wanted to say real quick, not safe. And I don't mean to quote that, I don't mean to utter it. Not safe, I think is, we have the structures for communication invite essentially bullying behavior. It's easy for the loud people or the whatever people to kind of end up being loud. And then there's not, that crowds out a lot of participation. So it's not just, it's not just, I wanna say something, except I'm not going to because every time somebody else has said something similar, it's been shouted down or it's run over or whatever, that happens, but it's even deeper than that. Structurally, this call and the format and who we are skews a certain way. The list is even more, skews faster and even more. And so there are a lot of people we don't hear from or a lot of people who don't come to one space or the other space because it's not safe in kind of a large meaning of that, not just I can't say something without being taken seriously. I apologize for taking up so much time. I mostly wanna hear from Grace today. Two symptoms of not safe are someone holds back saying something they would normally put in the conversation because it doesn't feel safe to do so. And also lots of side channels because saying something doesn't feel safe in the middle of the road somewhere. So those are I think what happens when a place doesn't feel as safe as it might. Grace, the floor is open to you anytime you'd like to jump in. I'm not going to shine the spotlight on you. I'm happy you're here and I'm concerned about your concerns. So I want to try to solve them or at least address them very seriously and what we're doing here. Otherwise we're as Rob and Charles and others were pointing out otherwise we are OGM in initials only. Yeah, can you hear me? Yes, we hear you just fine. So just so you know, I'm driving I have a little bit of a lost cat issue. I had to pick up one of those cages where I got a new cat. It's like a whole big, I don't consider it very tragic but my daughter's having a fit about it. So I probably should have not told her. Anyway, so I'm just on my way home. So I am driving and not showing myself. I've actually just gotten home which means I'm going to speak from the car simply because I use wood heat and nobody has heated the house all day. So I'm going to at least the first party from the car. So one thing I want to say and so it's not that I'm not showing myself because of anything that happened. It's just something I do while I'm driving and it's quite dark here. So even if I turn on my video, you just see darkness. So the, it's not just nothing. We just lost you. Cause... Grace, I'm sorry. Can you rewind 30 seconds? It's time. Oh, Grace. Grace, the gremlins in the internet that hear very carefully. Sorry, I must jump to my head. The gremlins that pay attention when somebody is about to say something important and then intervene just did so. So maybe if you want to get yourself to a more stable net connection, we will hear you more clearly. Yeah, I just, is this better? Yes. Okay, yeah. Sorry, my phone was deciding whether it wants to be on my wifi or on the mobile. So it's not just, so I can kind of be with any communication, and say what I have to say. Now I've held back on saying certain things for quite a long time, not because I was so afraid of what people would say, but because I'm going to call it, there wasn't a listening for it, right? I could say the things. I wasn't afraid it would be kicked out or bullied because you can't physically bully me and you can say whatever you want to say to me. It's not going to physically hurt me. Might distract me or upset me for a temporary period of time. But I'm not, I mean, like I'm sensitive, but I'm not sensitive in that way. I'd hear to sticks and stones can break my bones and names will never hurt me kind of philosophy about things. But it's just not interesting, right? If it becomes a place where we're just confirming one another's bias, then it stops being interesting. It's not just that it stops being safe. And so if let's say I saw some evidence of something that is not in the mainstream US media and particularly not in the left leaning mainstream US media that I think is interesting. And that could be about Twitter or it could be about COVID, which are the two hot topics right now. And I bring it up here. I have a pretty good chance that it'll be written off. And then the conversation doesn't get very interesting, right? So there's like this, so I'll say something about, the Twitter conversation I'll talk about a little bit because this was all in the background of the COVID conversation, but on the Twitter conversation, there was this thing like the Twitter files and some people were saying, some people are very, it's horrible that Elon Musk is taking over. And then some people are saying, well, what about this report? And somebody says that reporter is a jerk or whatever it is, right? I'm making it more extreme, right? And there's a lot of that instead of saying, huh, that's interesting that this reporter said that, there's an immediate defense of the position and saying that reporter has been paid off in the past, right? And again, I'm giving this as an example of sort of how the conversation goes, that rather than saying, huh, I'd never thought about that, let me look further, there's kind of a, yeah, but why are you relying on that source? And so there's a tendency in the group rather, I would say there's kind of two directions it goes, like that are just uninteresting rather than unsafe. One is, if I don't agree with your opinion, I'm gonna change, you know, I'm gonna criticize your sources or I'm gonna criticize your opinion or I'm gonna argue my side. And the other one is, if you say something that is not in a realm that I'm interested in because my project is about something else, you know, I'll clap you and wiggle my fingers and change, you know, talked about what I wanna talk about. But I feel like there hasn't been really in this group a feeling of going deeper into anything because it's just like everybody kind of says their opinion and there isn't like, huh, that's something to consider more than on an intellectual. Yeah, and Kayla, and it's not just humans, right? There's something, my sense is that it's gotten more like that in the United States than in Europe. And nobody ever said, and that's another thing people don't say, like, huh, Grace is in Europe, she's looking at different media, that's so interesting. She's seeing a different cultural trend. It's like, oh, she's a bit whacked out and isn't getting the truth or something, you know? And so like my sense is like, my opinion is not very interesting to anybody. And if I hear something interesting from you guys, like Pete put out some stuff that I thought was pretty interesting, I'm like, huh, that's really interesting about how the virus spreads. I'd never seen anything about it. If I was particularly interested in that, that opens up a gate to something that I had never really thought about. Wow, you know, it's spreading in the water and stuff like that. I didn't know, wow, that's interesting. And so it's like, we are all looking at different pieces of the media and I too, it's not often enough, I hear people go, huh, that makes me wonder. And so the conversation gets stale. So it's not just about unsafe. There is that thing, like, you know, like I was, you know, basically accused of being a COVID denier on the list. And I'm like, that, it's not like an accusation. It was like, there's such a closed mindedness that having a nuanced position put me on that, like, oh, maybe I'm a Trump supporter list. And I'm like, okay, wow, that was a big jump. And my family did that jump during COVID. During COVID, because I'm somebody who has not gotten the COVID vaccination because I'm concerned about side effects. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry early in my career. I saw the ways in which they hid evidence and I didn't trust them. And I have all the other vaccines, right? Like I have, you know, yellow fever vaccine, tetanus vaccines, I'm not at the anti-vaxxer, but I've worked in the pharmaceutical industry. And when it got rushed to the market, I just was like, oh, yeah, I'm not touching anything that the pharma companies rushed to the market. Not, you know, nothing to do with COVID at all. It had to do with my lack of trust of the pharma companies. And the fact that I got labeled almost as like, in my family as a Trump right-wing supporter, it was, I thought it was hysterical because my mom worked for the pharma companies for a whole life too. I was like, what are you talking about? Just yesterday, you didn't trust these guys. And so there's, I wouldn't say the behaviors as extreme on the UMGM, but for me, it's shown up that way. It's shown up like, you know, grace is just a little bit off the wall and not interesting. I'm gonna add to that one other thing that makes me feel not interesting, which is I've gone to a lot of other stuff here. I've gone to the flotilla and I've gone to the Lion's Berg and I've gone to the Society 2045. And I've participated in the mapping thing and I've checked out a lot of your stuff and only one person in the OGM greater community has ever signed up for my workshop. And I'm like, that's interesting. I'm really a bizarro crazy person and people aren't interested in what I have to say. Like, what am I doing here? And so again, it's not, I don't wanna say it's unsafe. I mean, most people would find it unsafe because they're just not as tough as I am. So I think that that's a proper way of saying it, but kind of feeling, thank you, Gil. And I haven't been kicking up with the chat because I'm on my mobile. But yeah, I'm just gonna kind of wrap it there and kind of get myself together and go inside and sort of have people respond to that. It'll probably take me maybe about 10, five to 10 minutes before I can respond again. So, you know, talk about me in front of my face behind my back. Thank you, Grace. Let me go straight to Judy. I was just going to observe that, that there's something rich in what Grace just said because I think she's right that we don't ask as many questions as we could. The initial response to an individual is as she says, someone either says, I agree in this or I disagree in this more the former than the latter, but we get into the didactic. But hardly ever does someone say, can you say more about that? Can you explain more deeply this dimension of it? And I think that in terms of effective communication and responsible communication, it's almost like I feel that I have an imperative to continue to ask questions, to better understand the other's point of view before stating mine. And it usually is helpful. It helps dial down any tensions if they're there because people often expect to be challenged, I think. And it's something we might want to consider as just something to think about. We'll stop there. Thanks, Judy. Gil? Yeah, Grace, I don't know if you're still listening, but thank you very much for what you've raised and the way you framed it. Couple of thoughts. One is that our listening, I don't mean our OGM, our listening humans commonly is listening for how what someone said fits into what I'm already thinking. You say something, I immediately agree or disagree, as opposed to, as Grace and you were saying, that's interesting. What does that provoke for me? Why is it that you've said that? Maybe I'm surprised that given what I know of you, what you said is uncharacteristic. I'm curious about that as opposed to immediately snapping into taking it against my checklist in my being and saying, okay, I now know what that is before even listening very much. That's number one. Number two, we seem to have an expectation here for a kind of depth and intimacy of conversation that usually happens with two or three or four people. We're trying to do it with 15 or 20. And I think that's structurally just a very difficult expectation to fulfill. And third, I'm perplexed, puzzled, unsettled by what may be as a conflation of safety and disagreement. I value disagreement. I like tussle and challenging conversations. I'm also out of the sticks and stone school, Grace. So I don't mind conversations with people just agree with each other. And there seems to be a mood emerging in the culture now that safety means don't challenge me. Don't provoke me, don't disagree with me. And I'm not drawn that way. I'm drawn toward, let's mix it up. But in a way that, yes, that brings something new into the conversation as opposed to just a fist fight between two ideas with something that actually has something new emerge. That's it for now. Thanks, Gil. Stuart and Judy, do you want to put your hand down from earlier? Thank you. Yeah, quickly, take a look at the demographic on the screen. It's clearly got something to do with our gender. There's no question about it, okay? There's a little bit of mine is bigger than yours going on here, because we're all a bunch of guys. Just think about that, okay? You're discounting the women on the call. That feels really to say we're a bunch of guys. I mean, come on, there's women on this call. We're not all a bunch of guys. There are three women on this call, and take a look at the screen, Ken. I can't disagree with you there. I'm just saying to say we're all a bunch of guys discounted women on the call. Right, I'm sorry, I slightly misspoke, okay? We are 80 to 90% guys on the call and that's got something to do with it. And I'm curious about what the women might say to what I just raised. I'll jump in just because I've been living with men so long that I don't consider myself different than I just been. But that might not be a typical response. I'm just interested in people who express their ideas well and are willing to have a dialogue about them and that's why this group feeds me. And we seem to be feeding some of that, but not enough of that. And I will add that I don't think that I'm Joe Rogan or any of the macho, our mind is bigger than yours kind of moderators and I try not to moderate ever in that fashion. But I will say that he didn't pede in my chasing after fact. My cat, my cat, my cat, it came back, it came back. Oh no way. You have cat? Yeah, yeah, I found it. Oh, fabulous. Fantastic, congratulations. Good news on the call. I love it. Thanks for sharing it. Cool, cat is found in the chat. I love it. Doug, please. Okay. To me, my thinking is that we have mixed instructions here as to what we're doing. So the idea of a go around is we hear everybody's voice. We don't follow up on what anybody says because that would break the chain of getting everybody's voice in the conversation. So when Grace speaks, for example, I'm often quite fascinated with where that might go. But to make that the chain would be to break the logic of the go around. So I just find mixed signals as to what we're actually doing structurally. I like the idea of a go around and we normally don't actually do it very well. Just getting everybody's voice in the conversation and then seeing where the conversation might wanna go. Anyway, it's my thought. Thanks, Doug. And a thing just quickly on that, which is this is not a check-in call and we are usually pretty explicit about the check-in. And I'm usually pretty explicit that my MO on the check-in is not, I apologize to the people we don't make it through, but I intentionally stop and say, tell me more to people on the check-in because I want to open up and figure out what they meant or what they said or isn't this, you know, whatever, or make connections. I'm very intentionally trying to slow it down and do that, which I think adds value, but I know to stress this, you Doug, because we don't make it through hearing from everybody often on the calls. And we weirdly have ended up at this like 16 size-ish most of the time. We don't, I don't remember any or many OGM calls where I had to worry about two screens in Zoom, for example. We don't ever get that big. And so I think we're also slightly under mixed signals in the normal calls where we're trying to do discussion together because it's unclear whether this is a salon conversation where we're enjoying each other's presence and we're mixing stuff up to maybe go talk later or a workshop where we're trying to get work done like Sen's doing and go deeper and slow things down and sort of annotate, tabulate, compare and build some models that might actually be useful outside of this conversation. And I don't direct us much into workshop mode. Mark, I'm gonna mute you because I think that sound is coming from your mic. And so, I don't know. I'd love to hear whether a check-in with no moderation at all, just people jumping in a queue and going, we tried at one point to use a Google Doc or something to figure out people putting themselves in the queue for check-ins. That didn't really work, it was clumsy. That was hard, but certainly open to alternate methods. But I think that's a side conversation to the topic misnamed as safety here. Grace, I wanna go back. I'm hoping that now that Habemus Felix has happened that one of my frustrations with OGM calls is that we don't very often slow things down and that very few of us are using tools to try to model what it is we're saying. Because I'm extremely interested. One of my passions is having an artifact besides an evanescent conversation on a mail list or in chat like this, a physical conversation like this, having sort of longer lasting durable artifacts that come out of it that get better over time. That we are sort of curating and crafting ways of understanding more deeply what it is we're saying. And that's an eternal frustration for me. Well, I think that this is kind of a perfect crisis, right? It's like, here we are winding down at the end of the year. And we're winding down kind of an era of time in terms of our lives have gotten back to as normal as they're maybe gonna get in this decade. And we're saying, okay, we've been meeting online for this amount of time. And we've gotten to a point in our relationship where maybe we want more. And I'm kind of stirring up the pot. I'm like, hey, let me try something here. Let me stir up the pot, which I did two weeks ago. And then I did on the mailing list and see where it wants to go. And I think Rob, I can't remember was one of the guys is like, okay, where is it going? What's gonna happen in 2023? And so the question of what type of like, should we have different kinds of go-arounds is inside of what are we doing here? And it was interesting the society 2045 conversation on that. And this has been kind of my, where I'm starting to reduce the number of groups I'm a part of and for larger groups, we're more interested in convergence, right? Rather than like, there's a lot of experimentation but maybe bigger experiments or experimenting more together and going deeper, right? So there's different places. Like there's a base level of relatedness here. And then it's like, okay, well, does that go somewhere or not? And I'm not the only one asking that question. So I think that that's, so that then there's, there has been enough safety in this group to have pleasant conversations, check-ins, getting to know one another's things, cover some topics that aren't too close to our hearts, avoid the topics that are too divisive. That's the level of relationships we've been so far. And so those two conversations go together. Okay, what's the next level of something we might want to be doing or creating with these calls? And then what's the level of relatedness for that? I just let a call yesterday for a group inside of one of the crypto groups that I worked with who they got a lot of funding for a bunch of tiny little projects this year, which are unrelated to each other. And they're like, okay, well, we got to bring it together for next year. And that means some people are gonna be out and some people are gonna be in and some people are gonna make sacrifices and some people are gonna have to go deeper into their motivations and we're gonna have to criticize each other and say, hey, that project really was kind of stupid. And I mean, I don't think anybody will use those phrases, but last year, none of the people in that group had the depth of relationship to tell somebody else, I think your project's a little stupid and doesn't do anything. And there's no profit model or there's no real growth there or whatever it is, right? And now after a year, this group has gotten to the point where they can say that to one another, hey, maybe we should do that. And so I think there's like, it's a bigger conversation, right? It's, if we're gonna get more safe and more intimate, they're also, for what purpose, right? And to me, it's kind of about, well, I'd like the conversation to go deeper and get more interesting. And I'd like us to, and Jerry's like, I'd like us to produce something. And I have a, we all have a list of things that are like, well, why aren't we, I'm sure we all have one or two things that were like, I wish we were doing this. Yeah, so there's kind of like, where does this go and how does it get safer? And by the way, in terms of men and women, of course, my response to that was duh. And I started forming a big women's group now. And everybody I've asked to set them in because women are sensing that coming into a men's group and trying to change the ethos and the way it operates and the way the conversation goes and the way collaboration happens and the way acceptance happens is an uphill battle. But if we created a parallel group, then there would be a moment in which we could say, okay, we're ready to join together with the men's groups and then bring in whatever it is that we bring in. So there's been, and it's been, we have an organizing committee which has seven people like organizing and the entire flow of the conversations of the work meetings is so much different than anything else that I'm involved in. And it's very effective. I've always come out with decisions and everything done, we wanted to do, but the flow of the conversation, if you listen to it, it would sound really inefficient to you. So yeah, that's complete for now for this round. I'm going to light a fire now. Thanks, Grace. Don't light a fire with the cat. What is the cat's name? Cat's indoors. What is the cat's name? The cat's name is Karma. Karma? Well, isn't that significant? I like it. None of you are probably Taylor Swift fans, but my daughter is and she's in charge of cat naming in my household. Even though she doesn't live in my household, she's still in charge of house. Like it's her little sister. So she gets to give the name. That's just how it goes. Thank you. Mr. Karanza, then Matthew. Thank you, Grace. I appreciate listening to you. I also have my own interests. I also have my own interests. Rob O'Keefe mentioned self tagging. And I am here. Because I believe. That. Mines can be. I'd like to. Do they look at me and say, ask Rob about self tagging. What do you mean by self tagging? You can give a short proceed about what that means to you. Thanks, Ron. Yeah. Appreciate it. I'm not a fan of mailing lists. That's fine that other people are. I just, I spend a lot of my work day and in email. And to me, it feels more like to do list. I'm the same token. I've gotten tons of information and tons of links and tons of good, good things out of this mailing list. So I'm not trying to say it's. Not, not good. But it feels like a to do list to go through the emails. And, you know, sometimes you can tell from the link what it is. Sometimes you can't. And so to me, self tagging would be. Hey, this is on. You know, social justice and the environment. And the key point is X. I'd love to hear from other people, you know, is, is it FYI or is it, I'd love to hear discussion. And I don't know what those tags would be. But the tagging would be to save the consumers of the email, some time and understanding why was this shared to the group. And, and that's my thought on the self tagging. And then knowing which ones to invest. I mean, we all have the limited time, right? That's our, that is our, that is our one precious resource. That's why we're all here. And, and I've talked to Jerry about this before that I typically have work meetings at this time, 11, 11 Eastern. So I'm not often on these calls. I canceled some meetings to be here today because it's a topic that I, that I'm interested in the, in the sense doing. So I think, I think that hit it, Mark, but I appreciate you asking. Thank you very much, Rob. I'm very interested in the nature of personal sense making as well as community sense making, as well as kind of political group sense making as well as certainly global sense making. I appreciate your answering the question. And now I hope we can continue with the theme of this. Thank you very much. Thanks Mark, Rob briefly to paraphrase you to see if I got it right. I think you're asking, could each of us add more value to whatever we're posting about. So it's not just, Hey, here's, here's a cool link. This was great. Please read it. Yeah, rather, but rather here's what it's about. Here's what we might do with it or whatever else. A nugget of context. Right. And I, I, I agree. I think it's a great question and it relates to a bunch of other stuff as well. Let's go Matthew, then John, then I want to steer us back toward sense doing and see where we are with that and see if we can't spend the rest of our call on that or if it's too early to do so. Matthew, I'll try to be as brief as possible. I haven't turned up to many of these meetings and there's two reasons for that. I first got introduced to this a few months ago, and I'm so glad to hear not the only person who's still wondering what it's for. And that makes me feel a lot better because I was like, this is really cool. There's so many interesting people and there's all these links and email, and there's also a Google group and there's also matter most and this is great. And there's a lot of talking, but then I wasn't sure what it was for. And I'm one of the people Jerry was talking about when he said, some folks have met here and gone off to do projects. And that's what I want to do is I want to like do something and build something. And if we want to just determine what is safe, why are we here for? And I think that that model, which I discussed with Jerry when he was in Europe, still via Zoom, but the idea where OGM brings people together to talk and come up with ideas, and then it spawns projects and they often do it. But then they report back. And as I mentioned in the email, hopefully there's more news about the project that Peter and Bill and I have been working on, which was spawned by FOTL actually, but similar to this. You know, next month, but there should be sort of, there should be a process by which projects are formed, they're spawned, they go off, they do things and they report back. These are the interesting things we discovered and bring them back to the group like a mothership or something like that. So that was just, that works for me, but I'm just throwing it in the group to see whether anybody else liked it. Thanks Matthew. I think what you just said would resonate strongly with Pete, jazz hands if yes or no, because it feels like what you've been describing a lot. John? Yes, thank you. Can you, am I coming through? Okay. Very clearly. Great. All right, so tagging, self and other, there's a lot of history here. There was a process I worked on in the 70s. I wrote the instructor guide for something called information mapping, which was Bob Horne's use of advanced organizers and labeling and a whole bunch of other stuff we don't need to go into. The more interesting and relevant to this group is we found in tagging experiments that it was a skill and it was also an effort. In other words, that casual tagging came easily to a lot of people, but really useful tagging required quite a bit of discipline, not unlike an editor, but it also introduced biases. But I mean, self tagging has biases. I mean, there's biases all over the place. Though it's just, it's not a question of being completely objective or unbiased. It's a question of what's your mechanism for managing that? So one that I tried in a little semi-private experiment was to look at some of the OGM chat and see, well, how could this be tagged? And where I got ahead of myself was not checking in with the authors about the tags, putting on their statements, checking in with them privately, see? And that I think is a potential model. There are, by the way, there's a whole body of knowledge about tagging, about what kinds of tags to use. And also there's some meta knowledge that is up above the individual statements and links, which is what's the ongoing conversation within OGM and does that, how does this relate to that ongoing conversation? There's a whole body of work here. I'll just suggest as in terms of observations that to do it well requires dedication and skill. If we were gonna do it, certainly welcome self-tagging, consider expert tagging. But if you expert tag somebody, you need to give them the right to review the tags and appeal, say, no, no, no, that doesn't get it. What I was trying to say was something like this and either change the tag or add a new comment that does a better job of expressing what the author really wanted to say. Okay, thanks. John, thank you. And in that interesting way that conversations sometimes do, you've just tipped us right back towards sense doing because what you're describing is also what Idealum does at a much deeper semantically aware, like Marc-Antoine Parrault is world-class in understanding how to structure arguments and how to compare them and all those kinds of things. And that's what Idealum was trying to do. And it's complicated and it takes work and there's a small posse of people who volunteered to sort of learn about it and try to sort of jump into that, which I'm excited about. So it feels like we might be on a path to do some of that, at least the little focal point of information that's floated past us on the retreat list, sorry, on the OGM list or something else like that. Rob? Just to clarify, I probably shouldn't have said self-tagging although I think people got the gist. So I'm probably thinking more of self-contexting, really just a phrase, this is why I'm posting it. I think tagging opens a whole can of worms that I wasn't particularly trying to get to. I totally agree. And tagging is maybe too lightweight a word for the thing we're intending in some sense. But it was working because it was lighting up the right neurons, I think for a lot of us. Okay, can we talk about sense doing? Is that are we enough there to figure out what that is? Okay. I am not. Then Pete, please tell me what we need to talk about before we start heading back there. It's an interesting conundrum because through a confluence of, happen senses over the past week or week and a half or something like that, I feel like we sparked a lot of interest and focus on actually getting something done. It turned out when we started describing self, what Jerry and I and maybe Flancy and kind of, we put under the heading of sense doing, and I think it's a good heading. We came, this community came up with the word sense doing earlier this year and then had sense forgotten about it, but it makes sense to kind of come back under it. Anyway, in describing ourselves to ourselves, oh yeah, I would be interested in that. And here's a sibling community that, I would love to, that my community that I'm in, that's not part of the conversation here, I would love to be doing that too. We got a lot of that in a very short amount of time, so I think it's a really rich topic. I encourage folks to go check out the Mattermost channel or tell me or Jerry why you would not check out a Mattermost channel. Our hypothesis is that Mattermost and Wiki curated by Wiki people is a good combination and a good replacement for the mechanics of an email list. I was looking forward to talking about it today. I feel kind of like there's a bigger elephant in the room, like what are we doing? Why are we doing it? Should we do it together? I'm reminded of Scott's, one of the things Scott said last week has stayed with me and it was a gift. I'm not leaving. I'm not leaving is what you say to your spouse or your partner. And that's the pivot around which the things that happen inevitably to a partnership throughout life, that's the pivot around which you stick together through thick and thin. So I feel my heart doesn't really want to talk about since doing today until I feel like we've at least had a little bit more time to think through why we're here, what we're doing together. And it's kind of ironic because it's like right at the time when we're fighting about what is this thing and why are we doing it and why can't we accomplish any damn thing since doing pops up. And it's like, oh my God, we could actually do something together. And oh my God, it turns out that since doing, Bentley made a great list of something that I said somewhere else, which is there's like three or four reasons people might be interested in since doing. And you want to kind of like make sure that we're not talking, maybe you're interested in since doing a topic. Maybe you're interested in the idea of since doing in general and you want to help other people do it and you don't care about what topic it is and so on and so forth. I'm not super interested in talking about since doing right now even though I kind of just did for a while. While I've got the floor, the other thing, we are in this constant tension about what is OGM and why can't we just figure out what we're doing. To me, I said it in the chat, to me OGM is an attractor. And it's wonderful at that. It brings people together who wouldn't have touched each other other ways. And like Matthew said, and like I've said a number of times, a process that does work is to spin out projects and get stuff done, like the tools for thinking math that Matthew and I are working on were interestingly enough, the fellowship of the link group, which is where TFT maps spun out of, fellowship of the link thinks it's a sub of OGM. So Matthew and I and Bill Anderson participate in a sub project of a sub project of OGM and we're getting a lot of stuff done. And it's amazing. And hopefully in January, we'll come back to OGM and say, here's what we've been doing. That pattern works really well for me. And I feel the frustration of why can't OGM get anything done? But we are getting stuff done. It's just not in this call and not on the list. And I'm not sure that this call or the list is ever going to be a place to get something done. Thanks. Thanks, Pete. And I'm feeling your tension or discomfort with not wanting to talk specifics about a project before getting through this piece that we're in right now as well. And I was kind of trying to see if we could gently steer toward the doing, but Grace. Yeah. So I mean, it is interesting, right? Like here we are talking about doing. When I've been pointing out, you guys aren't even making any sense. You're going to do sense doing. You're not doing sense making. But I think possibly in the trying to do, it will allow us to say, hey, this do is not, encompassing is not holding like the people whose opinions matter. I mean, for other people. Sorry, I think it's an ideal. Yeah. So can I hold your feet the fire just for a second? Please. Shakespeare Love is one of my favorite movies. So go ahead. This came out in the thread, right? When you did something, which was get a number of vaccines and boosters and still got sick, it didn't cause you to pause and wonder or at least not publicly. You were like, I'm pretty sure that this really helped me not end up hospitalized. That's how it occurred to me, right? It occurred to me. And so now I'm wondering, you're going to go to sense doing in a world in which in my perception, okay? This is not the truth. Okay. That even when the reality gives you feedback, I don't know how much research you went back and did. Grace, I had no expectation that being fully vaccinated made me immune to catching COVID, none whatsoever. That was not in my head. I was like, I need to keep out of it. But I did have an assumption that if I caught it, I'm probably my odds of being hospitalized and needing life support and like a rebreather or whatever were very low. That's all. I had, I don't know why you're assuming that I thought I was immune, like I had a shield, like a magic shield against catching COVID. No such thought ever entered my head. Okay, cool. And I don't think I've ever articulated anything like that. Okay, that's fine. I'm just like, because I'm like, I'm sort of pointing out that there's this, like there's some gap in how we're even making sense in the group. And here I am, I jumped to conclusions about you. You jumped to conclusions about me. We're jumping to conclusions and not finishing or completing our conversations. This is a perfect example of, right? You and me not understanding each other, not getting the full picture of what's going on. And then we're going to go to sense doing. And I feel like we're not at the, the level of communication in the group that as a grouping sense doing won't make sense. The other concern that I have is the level of individual projects and the number of individual projects. And Pete is very excited and happy about this. And so are some other people like we would do little projects and come back and report on them. I personally don't have an interest in that. I really think that we've gotten to a point where I personally want to do larger projects and do things together more. And that's my personal preference. But yeah, like I'm kind of like, I don't know, are we going to sense do or is it just going to break off into a whole bunch of little projects and seem like we're all doing little things but it's not converging to anywhere. I'm briefly graced and this might be helpful here. In 1990, I think I was at New Science Associates and I had to write a white paper about a speech I'd been giving a whole bunch. And I only realized in writing the white paper that a bunch of illustrative diagrams I'd been using the axes were backwards and didn't logically work. Because when I tried to put it down into words it actually didn't pencil out. It didn't actually work. And I actually think we've been sitting here saloning for three years almost and doing I think a reasonable job of that and not slowing the conversation down effectively and not creating tools or products or anything like that. And I have a feeling that if we slowed down to do that and looked at something we said, like part of the goal for using Mark Antoine's tools is to slow down and look at little stretch on the mailing list and see if we can't deconstruct that and so enter it deeply. That might take us into that territory. No guarantees Grace, but I have a feeling that trying some of those things is actually going to be helpful to the problem that you just described that I'm also sensing. And we'll miss each other less often. And I'm really open to experiments where each of us has a button or a knob or a dashboard that says disagree, agree, disagree. Like what if we all had people meters during a conversation and we could see that wow five people just spiked out of the crowd disagreeing with something we didn't notice because they weren't jazz-hensing down, right? Cause this is meant to be a pressure release valve for people who disagree with the statement. We're not even doing this when somebody says something that we actually disagree with. We don't feel somehow maybe safe enough to do that. And that's really interesting information to me. I don't want, Grace, I find you fascinating. I love how your mind works. I want to understand and connect up in the arena of ideas as well as on earth. And I hope at some point we get to sit down across the table and have some wine and some dinner. And I think that this community is about all those things kind of at once which makes it a bit confusing. I wanna also just kind of, one of the things is get a sense, like one of the things that's interesting to me is also maybe as individuals, also how interested we are in doing, and that's not just doing, it's also like we have different orientations around results. So one of the things that happened on that private thread was kind of like, what was, what if we started doing more sense-making here and putting this in some kind of a tool and labeling and tagging? We're talking about that now again. And I'm asking myself, what if we looked at a, and tomorrow I'm having on the mapping call, I've gotten Vincent put me in a slot that says, why I'm never gonna use your map and nobody else will either. And taking all of the maps saying, hey, we do wanna categorize and tag things. Has anybody made a really great tool who we could support instead of building our own? Or has anybody made a really great map? Or has it, because I pointed to this one really great sense-making tool, which I think is completely underfunded, super interesting, way beyond anything I could possibly think of. And what if part of our sense-making was, or what if we did is, and I think this is probably one of the most qualified group I've ever seen to say, here's a whole, here's a bunch of, and I need all of them, but all the tools that are for mind mapping, the best one is Jerry's brain or whatever. This is the best one. We should all put our weight into there. Of course, then we'd have to do that. What does it mean weight? And does it mean fundraising? And does it mean joining? And does it mean what? But I feel like I would really trust this group to say, hey, we've looked at these hundred tools, and this one is just outstanding. Why don't we throw our weight there rather than let's develop our own? And I don't know, maybe that's just my- Matthew, Bill and I are doing that for what it's worth. Cool, that's super cool. And I'm muted. And I can tell that there's another really interesting conversation we should come back to on this right now, but I'd like to get to Judy, Bentley and Doug real quick. I think I'm still unmuted, right? Nope, we hear you now. Okay, I think we're on the edge of some really thoughtful and productive conversations in that there is a difference between talking about and doing about that's significant. And I'm uncertain for myself the effectiveness of trying to do in a large group versus the effectiveness of trying to do in smaller groups offline, because I wouldn't want to lose not just the check-in but the thoughtful questioning and discussion that occurs in this conversation. So it might be that we would want to map or somehow consider organizationally how might we want this organization to evolve from one large call to some framework that meets diverse needs of diverse people in the call. It's clear that people who wanna work projects have figured out how to connect with each other and do that, but there are lots of other dimensions because that's, well, and I don't know the details of what you're doing in your projects. I can't comment on them exactly, but I just think it would be really helpful to spend some time on large group, small group discussion and what it is that's unique in a large group that can't be done in smaller groups or it can be done in smaller groups, but then comes back for aggregation and divergence discussion and things like that. And I think there's a difference too in terms of action groups because Ashton groups can be around evolving thought or they can be around taking action. And I'd like to discern those differences too. Thanks, Judy. Really briefly, I know nothing about life sciences or how DNA works, but I picture OGM kind of as a soup of DNA snippets that we're stirring around. And occasionally some of the snippets come together into something that's maybe a little viable life form and they float off and do something the way Pete was describing. And if we're lucky they come back, but the soup is much larger than our little bowl. There's actually communities worldwide doing all this kind of work. And occasionally we were like, oh my God, we just tried to do X, but it's been done nicely over here. Let's go join their efforts and donate what we figured out to their efforts, et cetera, et cetera. And in this way, I think our little burbling pot can become a community of organisms and solve the different problems in different bite-sized ways. And I'm unclear, grace to your question, I'm unclear that there's one tool to rule them all, but there might be one architecture that allows tools to play very nicely together so that when I add value to the community commons information layer with my preferred tool, it's readable and useful and usable by other people using any other tool that's compliant to this architecture. And that's kind of where we're aiming, I think philosophically, and it's really hard. And there's a couple of individuals, this guy named Gordon Brander who's creating the Noosphere Protocol. There's a few other people I've met who are busy inventing what could be these protocols and layers that allow a bunch of different tools to come in and play nicely together. And that's just like a wicked problem at this point. It's a thorny big thing. Bentley Doug C.B. Yeah, so when Grace was talking, you may have had a slightly different interpretation of since doing than what I thought of it. So maybe we can also think about changing the name or clarifying that, and maybe I'm misunderstanding. But also initially, there's a valid point that I don't think since doing addresses, which is how we conduct ourselves in this meeting to make it more open-minded and more global. So that's a really good piece. And then I think that that inspired the since doing, which is tangential, but doesn't actually address that issue, except the people doing that may come back and they hear with a slightly different attitude, which might help. But for since doing, the term for me came up because we've had a lot of meta discussions about how to do sense-making. And since doing is us actually practicing and experimenting with those things. So it is sense-making. It's not actually taking action out in the world, maybe. So maybe that's a different interpretation of the term since doing, and maybe we need to clarify that because it is, but to probably your point, it is kind of an abstract sense-making outside of this communication channel. And you were talking about sense-making inside this communication channel. So feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting any of that, but I just thought it might be helpful to clarify my interpretation and that maybe we need to clarify that better. I'm not sure I'm understanding everything you said, but I agree with you that sense-doing is not a project to sort out the thing we've been talking about so far on this call here and that we need some parallel effort there. I don't know that they're mutually exclusive. I think they might actually be mutually helpful. If it helps a long time ago, I bought the domain openglobalheart.com through Charles Blass's sort of Bass's recommendations. And that might be a way to think about it. I don't know. I don't know that it needs a project name or a different website or anything like that. And then real quick, we're talking about tools and I definitely agree in going out and finding the tools that are out there. And that's why I'm also kind of pushing back at choosing tools right now. I would rather get in and sit down and talk about what do we want to sense-make on, pick some topics, how deep we want to go, build some context and then explore and see what tools are out there and which ones fit rather than choosing a tool or tools and then digging deep. But that's my preference. And yeah, I prefer seeing what's out there even though I, well, okay, prefers wrong way. I realize the better way than the way I've been doing it for the last 30 years is to go and see what people have been doing out there rather than inventing it myself. But I have to continuously fight that urge. I think sometimes our efforts to invent things ourselves and I'm not a coder, but many of us in the room are, are what cause the insights that make us appreciate what somebody else built already and then go help them or invent some little piece that solved something that they didn't solve, whatever. So I don't want to ever discourage us from tinkering because the tools are so powerful now and just getting more powerful all the time. So I think together we're gonna maybe even accidentally start to figure out what all these little slices are and how they fit together. And that's the thing I'm trying to encourage. Doug C. Well, I wish I had something smart to say here. I find I have almost no idea what Sans doing would actually look like for this group. I feel like we're treading water in the middle of a fast moving river. And that's not a good thing to be doing. For me, the world is falling apart quickly, more quickly it looks like today than it did yesterday and we're not talking about it. And I don't know whether I'm in a minority of one and thinking that that's where we ought to go or whether I'm part of a majority here. I just have no idea. Thanks, Doug. And I'm wondering how to get a sense of the room on that. I know that I'm incredibly furious personally, although I do a good job of masking furious that we are busy trying to keep the United States from becoming the handmade's tale when in fact we're facing a series of existential crises that really would benefit from our collaboration. So I'm extremely anxious that we're not actually solving any of the problems together and that our political sphere seems to be in a Mexican standoff that seems almost impossible to get rid of, money pouring into these campaigns means we are finally split on a 1% difference sort of worldwide weirdly. This is happening all over the place. And that's gonna be the, you know, there's a way of looking at that that spells the end of humanity coming reasonably soon because these are extinction level events that we're busy talking about that are already in motion and happening. And that, by the way, is a point of view that could be picked apart and contrasted with other points of view that, hey, everything's actually all right and technology's gonna solve it. And I'm really interested in how that looks. And I'm really interested in the storytelling that Doug, you would do and any of the rest of us would do around that and rooting that story in the facts and evidence and points of view. And what that looks like in sort of a multi-layered vision is partly why I'm here trying to stir the pot hard. Doug B, you're muted. I actually have an idea of how to get a sense of the room, Jerry, if you want to do that. I would love that. What you do is you say, how do people feel about whatever it is, the urgency of the problem? And then this is a lot and this is a little and just whatever it is you wanna get a sense of the room about, just say, how do you feel about this a lot, a little? Like, is this, yeah. So just use your hand in your square, in your rectangle. Yeah, and then you can look at the whole room together. And so whatever it is that, I totally resonate with, who resonates with Doug said, like, oh my God, the world is getting worse and worse, faster and faster, you know, like, and then whatever it is, you can. Why don't we just use hand signals? Why don't we ask that question like this moment? Who resonates with what Doug just said? Please put your hand in your square, where you think it falls. I want a value that's, you know, I don't wanna participate in that vote. You could do like a fist, which is like the opt-out. You could do like the finger, which is the opt-out. That's the nasty opt-out though, Gil. I think having a binary that the world is falling apart isn't the right thing to vote on. It wasn't binary. It's like, hey, we're sitting here dithering while the world is falling apart. Is that a binary? Seems like a yes or no question. Oh, well, this is a scale, right? This is a scale. What's the purpose of the vote? Doug was like, I can't even tell in this crowd if people feel as urgently as I do that we're facing like existential crises when we're sitting here. We've always handled that by this or plus. Well, we are, but it may not make any difference. A little bit of Alfred E. Newman. It's the umpteenth cyclical species extinction. I come here to be in community with my peers and with my friends. And this call, interestingly enough, Mark said, Mark Franza said, I come to these calls. I wish I could just get some homework to take home and do for a week. I get my homework in other calls, which you could call OGM calls. I would love this call if we were just friends with each other and hung out. So I'm not saying one or the other is right or wrong or whatever, but we have a variety of reasons to be here and a variety of reasons to vote or not on whether the world is going to hell on hand basket. It is, obviously. But that's not what I want to talk about here. Doug B, we stole the microphone from you there briefly. I'm passing it back. And I'm unmuted. So, um... It's also good. So just on what just happened, I'm sort of with Pete, I'm not interested in feeding the dark hoof and that's how I experienced that. So I'm gonna throw an additional dimension on to the pile because I'm living in not the meta but more the proto domain of how do we do us differently? And that can be how do we talk to each other? How do we co-create together, all of that stuff? As living beings, which is really, really complicated. And I'm not saying that I'm living in a different way. Really, really complicated. And really foundationally precedes its like precedes, projects and doing and tools and all of this other stuff that has to do with doing. But before you even get to doing, there's like some really deep foundational things that need to be present in order for anything to manifest. And those are things operating energetically. They're operating not Nam land, but in sort of verb being land, by and between a group of people that come together to co-create. And I'm gonna invoke some elemental references, but if there's a group of people looking to create something, there really needs at some point to be a alignment by and between on the way in which people are gonna relate to each other, treat each other and engage. Before you even define what the it is they're engaging around. And if that isn't handled and if that isn't like arrived at collectively as a function of individual getting to know other individuals and coming to some kind of individual subscription to a collective set of common things, things held in common on a values level, really, really tough to have something manifest out the back end at the end of the day. On the other side of the, if that's one book and the other side of the bookshelf, there needs to be some collective expression of individual agreement to a common purpose. Like we're doing X in service to bringing Y to the world. And if different people have different ideas about either what the it is they're giving birth to, who are the beneficiaries of the it that they're giving birth to it for and the higher purpose that that's contributing to the greater grander, then it's almost impossible to get to manifestation of something. Doug, it seems to me like what you're asking for is very unlikely to happen, but something will happen. So I'd like to explore that. Okay, well before we go there, before we go there, because there are ways people hear what I just said and I wanna make sure that's not going on. So this is not about, everybody has to agree to one thing. That's number one. It's not about unanimity, but for a group of people collectively engaged in co-creating something, there needs to be a couple of agreements, foundational agreements, that everybody's pulling in the same direction and it is gonna relate to the endeavor and each other and the way they go about creating with a very small set of common values and orientations. I don't even wanna invoke rules because that's hardening up in a way that I'm not really talking about on a felt sense level. So I raised, at one point earlier in OGM, I raised the question like what is the purpose? I don't believe there is one defined for OGM and then part of the wash and the chaos and the fraud, the red ocean of projects and things and cross currents and all of that stuff is a reflection that OGM as a baby that was created by whoever here at its inception didn't define a purpose, didn't set or express, publish, manifest a purpose for what this is. And what happens here to me is a reflection of that lack and I don't mean lack from a judgmental place. I also wanna counteract internal reactivities. It's not a judgment lack, it's just not, there isn't a defined purpose that I've seen or found. So everything I said applies fractally. So you get down to smaller groups of people working together around an it, if they have the ingredients, they make progress, they manifest something. The bigger a group gets, the more foundational these two bookends are needed. And if they're not there, it's the odds of a larger group of people manifesting something, bringing something into, birthing something into the world in concrete, framework terms, whatever the it is diminishes in direct proportion. And with that, I'll complete. Thanks, Doug. And I feel like there's been a sort of mission statement on the web since day one, which is, OGM is trying to create a shared memory so humans might make better decisions together. And it's a little bit more complicated than that because it has to do with heart, not just mind, but there's something like that. So I'm not, I'm unclear that we haven't had some sort of rallying statement that was why people sort of nosed around and started checking into the group and seeing if they liked it. So I've got a bunch of people, Kevin, you fell out of the list, but you were right after Mark Caronzo. So let me go, Mark C, Kevin, Matthew, Judy. Thank you, Doug. And thank you, Jerry. I was going to basically make the same request that Kevin goes after. My little comment. I find it hard to do homework. I'm a very busy person. And at the same time, productive meetings usually end up with action steps. Now there are different kinds of meetings, but Mark, your audio is kind of clicky and unclear. I'm not quite sure what you're talking to us through. Yeah, I have, is it still bad? It's getting digital artifacts from somewhere. We can understand what you're saying. So you can keep going. It's just that it's a little, I'm having to filter audio artifacts. We can hear you. Okay. Anyway, my homework, which I haven't done most of the time, is to try to reach out personally to Judy, Doug, Klaus, and I have failed completely in terms of doing that once a week to one of the participants and saying, hey, let's spend an hour talking. I've done that with Ken Homer and we have a beautiful friendship and I haven't talked to him in weeks. It's just, how do I, I don't quite earn a living. So yeah, I'm struggling with poverty and certainly that has an effect on time and how I feel free to give my time to something that isn't paying the rent. And it is a concern that may not be shared by most of the people in this group. Luck is a big thing when it comes to having been able to put money away in savings and having to spend it when it doesn't have money. The invitation is, hey, please spam me. I would like to connect with you and I haven't been able to. You all, all of y'all, and that's my homework and we might have different kinds of homework but the idea of even breakout groups during some of these calls where there's a smaller focus, hey, who wants to focus on mind tools? Who wants to focus on existential stuff? I've sensed it myself. But you know, what I loved about KikoLab was their sense of play with the group. They had different moderators. They'd shift from men to women. They have invited folks. Now, we don't all have to be one way but I'm looking for a little more variety to break up the usual suspects here and hopefully that might be shared and if it's not shared, that's perfectly fine too. Thanks for listening. Please, Kevin, I love to hear. Thanks, Mark. Yeah, let's go, Kevin and Judy Kloss. Yeah, I thought we had a project to do and something to do some sense making around with the COVID thing and that made sense. I'm what Temple Grandin would call a bottom-up thinker as is she. And so when it gets into concepts, I really can't process those. I can do pattern recognition better than anybody and assemble a mosaic. And I can't understand when you go there but I thought we had a thing to work on and that when you go up there, I will try to maintain until it gets back to something away from abstract concepts of what we could do or be. So anyway, I thought we had something to work on. Not many people actually care about the content of the COVID conversation. And we've gotten much more juice about when we take little sides, I don't mean that. When we start talking about COVID, how do we talk about it? And that's where the juice of the conversation has actually gone. I don't agree. I think it's been the juice of the conversation is how to talk about COVID. It's the how and the thing. And when you get to into the how, you get to just hand jive at the meta level, which is nothing wrong with hand jive at the meta level if you have the right individual avatar. Could you unpack hand jive at the meta level for me? I'm unclear that I understand. It's circular going nowhere, onanistic philosophy. Ah, I like that very much. I think I'm gonna add that as a whole new branch of philosophy in my brain. You know, you could be the guru of onanistic philosophy, Jerry. I'm not clear. I want that on my tombstone. There's a lot of chess keys you could sell. That's true. The merge potential is huge. Judy then class. Well, I wanted to comment. First of all, I like that we went to the alternating week structure of a topic versus our general call. I would hate to lose the check-in call because I think the richness of the topics in the room as each person expresses what they're doing is intense. But we might mind that somehow at the wrap up section of the call and look for additional topics to add so that we could take another meeting outside the main meeting or introduce it as a partner in the sequence to we're gonna do something different every week. We're gonna do check-in calls once a month. We're gonna do this the next week. We're gonna do this the third, this the fourth. I'm not sure what the right infrastructure is, but I think it would be, I would welcome the opportunity to go into more depth on subsets of our general discussion with any number of people in the room. And I think finding a way to do that is different than saying we're going to do something about X which means we're gonna generate a work product that takes us in yet another direction. And I think there's two types of breakout that we might want to consider. There might be seven types of breakout, but anyway, that's my thought. Yeah. And did you talk on those two types, Judy? I'm not sure I've got them clear. The projects that have broken out so far are around doing something largely with technology but not exclusively. They're like, how do we put the tires under the car to make this work in an adaptive internet environment? And I think that's really important and those groups are doing a great job doing what they wanna do. But what we're not doing is taking the rich content of this call and saying we need to dive into topic X with a subgroup of people who are really passionate about topic X, bring that back to the whole group for reflection and sort of expand our shared consciousness in different realms. And I don't know if that's workable. It sounds kind of messy, but that would be my dream. So Judy, you and Mark have just talked about sort of spawning small subconversations and what Pete was describing earlier, I think is that some of those little subconversations and subprojects are just happening organically because somebody says, hey, let's go start a call. And then that call just sort of builds a little bit and keeps going. And there's a bunch of little calls mingled across the OGM and other communities that are happening. And some of them are actually like very happily sort of beavering away at some thing that they're gonna build and bring back and a shiny object they'll show to the group which might fit into the larger puzzle, et cetera, et cetera. And we've tried to get people over to the Mattermost channels to actually have a lot of these conversations because on Mattermost we have channels that have topics and you can actually go deep on the topic and you can find other people who are like-minded. But man, it's hard to get all of us over into Mattermost to do that. And I would not discourage at any moment, anybody saying, hey, anybody put on the OGM list. I'm really fascinated by this topic. Please come join me in my Zoom at this hour and see who shows up. And if people show up and that turns into something, go crazy and keep doing that. I think it's practically and exponentially explosive to try to slow down and go and inspect everything that we say that's of interest that I think all of our brains explode at the prospect of that. And one of the cool things about any OGM check-in call is that for me, we generate a whole bunch of things I need to go track down and add to my brain and think about and so forth. I love that. I mean, that's sort of just like meat and potatoes for me or whatever the right analogy is. So, Judy, I think some of what you're looking for is actually happening and some of it we need to encourage more of just organically to see what's up. But also, I think that our Mattermost server is a really nice place for some of us to happen. Mr. Mager. Yeah, I wanted to step back for a moment and what I have been able to get out of our conversations here. And I must say the richest experience besides all the wonderful support I got from Jerry and Pete and others to learn how to organize workshops and webinars and so on, which has been really helping me a great deal to get to where I'm at today. But the richest experience was the book discussion on the dawn of everything. And it kept elevating my thoughts into what I'm in right now spinning out of that discussion is a discussion on free will, is nature deterministic. Who are we really as a species? What is our function? Now, how do we engage in decision making collectively that can secure our collective future because we are as a species threatened right now for our very survival, right? And I think everyone in this group is clear about this, but the threat has a far greater immediacy. And I think this is what Doug was also referring to. Then we are willing to cope and deal with, right? So the challenge is to develop consensus around a hierarchical structure of nature. Not everything is of equal importance. Not everything is equally right. So we know, for example, that gravity is a thing. And you can't fly an airplane until you understand certain rules of nature. So there's a lot of stuff going on where we assume a deterministic nature of our decision making and then we assume free will. But then you hear Einstein and others saying there's no such thing as free will. Is it super deterministic? So what does that mean? I think those are questions that are deeply relevant to the way we understand our own reality. And the biggest challenge that I see, and I run into this every single day in every conversation is we all live in silos, right? Because our life experience, our education, our background and so on means that we are looking at reality from within the silo that we are by default stuck in. So the challenge then is to climb out of that silo for a moment, look around and see how we're connecting to everything else. And the biggest problem that we see right now, I mean, I see a guy like Bill Gates, for example, wanting to make decisions that he thinks are in the best nature, in the best possible way to make a contribution, but in the process create more damage and more chaos without knowing that is because he's stuck in the silo perspective, not understanding other stakeholders and what we call externalities that are being impacted. But that's what I think is the systems nature of our existence, to link us from a systems perspective. And that's when we are flying as a group, when we step back and look at this, that's when we start flying. And when we get stuck into COVID is certainly a super important issue, but in the scheme of things, right? It's a sideshow. And so that's where I think, not wanting to solve a big project or anything, but simply solve a mutual understanding and a perception perspective of reality. Because I honestly, I'm honestly where Doug is, I mean, I think we're running into a wall and it's coming up much, much faster and harder than we're prepared for. At least we're having a good time in the limo. Just kidding. It feels sometimes like that's sort of what's happening, is that we're going there. We're close to the end of our normal 90 minute call time. We did no real project work on SenseDoing, which attracted a bunch of people to the call who might not normally have come in. I kind of want to apologize for that. Actually, no, I don't kind of want to apologize. I do want to apologize for that. And I think that the conversation we just had was necessary, but I don't know that we need to keep having the meta conversation and avoid some sense doing. So my instinct here is to create a pop-up SenseDoing call separate from next Thursday's OGM call, which is in our normal sequence, probably should be a check-in call, given that we've expressed our desire to have those and that the last couple calls have been topic calls by sort of de facto. And then I want to add something, which is, I don't know that I say this out loud very much, but Open Global Mind, and I mentioned having bought Open Global Heart, but whenever I explain OGM to anybody, I say, hey, it sort of has two halves. For me, conceptually, the lower half is the geeky brain-mind part that's expressed well in Open Global Mind, especially as a global brain. And it has to do with protocols and visualizations and logic and rhetoric and arguments and argumentation theory and all that good stuff. The upper side has nothing to do with all the geeky stuff. It has to do with heart and it has to do with vulnerability, safety, community, trust, all the kinds of things that if there's no heart present, there's no reason to address the logic or the arguments and there's nobody gonna talk to you if they don't trust you some way to have that conversation in some sense. And I think we underplay under, we don't dive very much into the heart part of this, even though it's clearly evident in our conversations that we're building some heart between us, but we also have some heart deficits, some heart, we're not listening wholeheartedly enough in some senses, which is maybe where Grace started us on the conversation in this call. And we need to like spend more time on that. And I know that there's a bunch of people who are professional people like Nancy White who lurks at the periphery of OGM because she thinks we're on something interesting but we're really not dealing with the stuff that she cares about, which I think is more in this upper container. And I think we ignore the upper part explicitly maybe at our peril, I'm not sure, I don't know, but I don't wanna draw more attention to it because for me, there's like heart and mind or brain are complimentary. They're not opposite, they don't disintegrate together, they're necessary together in order for this thing to actually move forward. And so Ken has tried really hard to get us out of conversation mode and thinking mode into feeling mode and exercises and grounding and breathing and being present together. That's a piece of this upper layer as well. Just learning how to be more present together. And unfortunately, we were all thrown into Zoom at the start of pandemic, which made OGM kind of possible but also has us all living in these little rectangles showing up several times a week into these calls that are not physical Prana presence with each other. And we don't live many of us near each other anymore, although many of us once did. Ken, you're muted. Oh, there you go. I wanted to take us out with a poem if it's timely to do so. That sounds very lovely to me. This poem has to do with seeing. It's called Monet Refuses the Operation by Riesel Muller. Doctor, you say there are no halos around the street lights in Paris and what I see as an aberration caused by old age and affliction. I tell you, it has taken me all my life to arrive at the vision of gas lamps as angels. To soften and blur and finally banish the edges you regret that I don't see. To learn the line that I called horizon does not exist and sky and water so long apart are the same state of being. 54 years before I could see Ruan Cathedral is built of parallel shafts of sun. And now you want to restore my youthful errors, fixed notions of top and bottom, the illusion of three dimensional space, wisteria separate from the bridged covers. What can I say to convince you that the houses of parliament dissolve night after night to become the fluid dream of the Thames? I will not return to a universe of objects that don't know each other as if islands were not the lost children of one great continent. The world is flux and light becomes what it touches, becomes water, lilies on water, above and below water, becomes lilac and mauve and yellow and white and curell and lamps, small fists passing sunlight so quickly to one another that it would take long streaming hair inside my brush to catch it. To paint the speed of light, our weighted shapes, these verticals burn to mix with air and change our bones, skin, clothes to gases. Doctor, if only you could see how heaven pulls earth into its arms and how infinitely the heart expands to claim this world blue vapor without end. Ciao, y'all. Thank you, Ken. I'm gonna stay here in silence for a little while and see y'all next week and then the intermediate calls. Thanks, everyone. Good week.