 Excellent. All right. Greetings. Good morning. Sorry to be late. I was doing sex support for my better half. No problem. She has a webinar coming up that she's performing in. So I had to plug in the better microphone, et cetera, et cetera. When is your webinar immediately? She has a tech check at seven at 15 at quarter after. So right now, but the webinar is not to the top of the hour. Okay. And what's that through? I don't remember seeing something from April about that. Usually she posts those. This one I think is private. It's for Hayworth. Okay. Yep. Yep. So. Always see how her flux thinking is evolving. Exactly. Well, it's really interesting for our paths are sort of intertwined and converging. Her list for the flux group is massive. It's big. It's big. Exactly. Hey, Lauren. Hey, Jack. Hey, Peter. Bentley. Bentley, you have the most awesome background. That's cause it's fake. But you've chosen well and the, uh, and your processor is fast enough that there are no edges and it helps that you have no, not a lot of hair on the top. Yes. All that. I specifically, no, actually. I can go to Hawaii if you prefer. Oh, but I like, I like your kind of, it's like a slate green kind of color with a gradient. So it's, it works great. Yeah. And the great thing about that is since the green screen and hide some of the green bleed over and fade in. So it's a bit of a cheat. Nice work. Nice work. Thanks. Yeah. The problem with those virtual screens is that they kind of, they get really funky in terms of hand movements and other things because. Unless your processors fast. Yeah. Yeah. And then, well, in this case, I have an actual green screen. Uh, so, uh, the processing is a lot more accurate than, um, the AI based stuff they're doing. Exactly. My, my MacBook is, sorry, you're going to say my, my MacBook is old enough that it, it says, sorry, can't do this. But then if I have a green screen, we're okay. Same sort of thing. In the future, the AI is getting absolutely amazing. You're going to be able to say whatever background you want. It's going to be fully animated and no one will be able to tell. I plan to look like Peter Van in the future. Right. Face swaps will be able to thing too. I'll get my hair back. Exactly. And you can have an arrow through your head. The whole thing like Snapchat already does that. Sorry, Judy. Yeah. I'm just going to say then we can create our fantasy persona. Exactly. Yeah. And get further from reality. Yeah. And we can have like a furry convention in here. Has everybody seen, has everybody seen the TikTok video where their owners use Snapchat to look like cats and then show their cats. The situation. No. That would be. Oh my God. It's hilarious. So, so basically. You're seeing what the, what the phone is taking. And there's a cat kind of looking at the camera and behind it is the master and the master suddenly looks like a cat. And the cat, you see the cat. And in some cases like bad at it in other cases, just bolt from the scene, but the cat realizes what just happened. It's like, this is just too weird for you. Yeah. So, you know, cats being wonderful subjects for all sorts of experimentation. And it sounds like a, it sounds like a skinner thing. Yeah, exactly. So we have a, we have two calls today in case anybody's up for this, that this afternoon is the ho down, which is a comparison of tools and methods. Which I think will be a little chaotic and fun. And then this is our normal weekly check in. And I thought we'd just do a really quick sort of check in. So we can pick up and go ahead. I'm just going to be, I'm going to be doing great. And then I'm going to come up and present a particular thing I want to figure out where is everybody? What is everybody interested in? And then. Go for that for a little bit. So let's do a little check in let's see. Jack. Judy Hamilton. So Jack, can you check in? First, you have to find the unmute button, which is hiding from you right now. In the still hiding. tremor to target that thing. There's somebody's got a mouse adapter for a full tremor, except it only works on Windows to come up for the Mac. So I could, but when I get excited, these hands get really crazy. So why am I excited now? This is such a cool group. Checking in. What could, you know, I just see people here that I've, you know, I interact with on other tribes and I see people here that I don't know that I've ever met. And so this is going to be very interesting. So my game is taming global conversations and that's really, you know, what gets me out of bed every morning is this idea that it is physically possible to actually bring together disparate tribes if you break them up into tiny small groups and give them something to do that's meaningful. And specifically I'm making the case that World of Warcraft and Global Sensemaking can be merged into a kind of a unity that will allow a large enough portion of this planet to come together that we might actually start solving problems. That's where my head's at, over. Very cool, thank you. And I typed in the chat that you are topic guests so people who are interested in your context can Google that, et cetera. I love that, Judy. For those of you who haven't met me, Judy Bannum from Minnesota. I've been interested in getting people together to change things my whole life and like the dynamism of that, find the challenge of it occasionally very challenging and welcome this opportunity to try to do it in a more virtual sense in more real time and actually get things done. And I met Judy ages ago through the American Chemical Society. I think I did a speech there. I'm probably one of the few people here too that has a 30-year corporate career at 3M. So I'm not from the tech community per se. Thank you. Hamilton, then Ken, then Matt. Morning, afternoon, good day everybody. Happy Thursday. Don't have a lot of stuff to share me or maybe I have too much stuff to share in the time so maybe that's the way to look at it. I will say, it's interesting, I've done a lot of sleuthing on who you people are. I've trolled you guys behind the scenes it's so fascinating who you are and we haven't really invited, I get it, to do a rich introduction would be three calls of all these people. But I'm from Collective Next, if I never said that. And one thing I'd love to say, maybe to push and ask for some feedback is Hank, Matt and I, we just, our company, we just launched a new website that's trying to tell our story about what we do and who we are. And so I would love for you guys to see it and tell us what you think. That's a shameless plug in an ask, maybe borderline nefarious introduction but there you have it. Perfect for new things. I'll put it in the chat. A little swirl of mystery is useful to any conversation. Thanks, Ken. Yeah, my focus these days, I'm very interested in the work of Thomas Metzger who basically argues that human consciousness exists inside of a virtual construct, not just mental but bodily as well, which is totally transparent to the consciousness because it brings up the immediate point of if you're living in a model, how does the model change? And so I spend a lot of time trying to find the, the points at which you can see historically that possibly the whole underlying cultural model people were using changed and to interpret the world. And of course, we are in fact living through a period I think where that is happening big time. And yeah, but it's not subjectivity. That in fact, well, the whole idea is that the model is totally transparent. The, there are not it's personal choices, whatever subjectivity is only something that only happens inside of reality and reality is only what happens inside of the model. So things that break the model are not experienced as subjective experiences. They're more like insanity or religious inspiration or something, but subjectivity is how you would think about it if you stayed inside of our current model. So you've just set a new goal for this afternoon's ho-down because the brain that I'm showing you is actually a model inside the model inside the model that we're all playing a game inside of. So if one of us breaks through the shell and manages to get root access, we're all good. There is no, Metsinger makes the point that it's like being in the matrix, but there is no underlying reality. You cannot escape the model. That's the challenging part. And Ken and I used to be neighbors in Berkeley. He used to run Seed Wiki and we did many a fun experiment with Seed Wiki which I will probably relate here because you can in some way trace a lot of what's happening here to what we were messing around with back then. He also knows way too much about military history. Matt and then Hank, then Gudi. Thanks, Jerry. So there's a couple of things. One is I, since the last time we spoke really got turned on to the concept of web three, right? And I think most people might be familiar with that, but if you're not, web one was really a transactional web, whether it's commerce or communication, web two was defined as a social web and with the promise of the wisdom of the crowd, but really has turned into the madness of the masses. And that web three, as I understand it, and I'd love to learn more here, is has this idea of expertise and intelligence on top of it and that intelligence at least in my mind could be artificial, but I also think it requires human intelligence. And so one of the things that I'm working on right now is how do you build a sort of a web three type set of conditions with inside of an organization so that organization is not just making choices either from the expert on the top or CEO, but or just leaving it to the masses to control it, but really layers on that intelligence. So that's one thing that I've been thinking about. The other thing is I have a personal friend who is a CEO of a big company who revealed to me recently that he has early onset Alzheimer's and has asked me to help him story thread to use words that Jerry has used, help him construct a way of articulating not only his life and who he is and those kind of classic stories, but also to begin to almost create his body of knowledge in the financial services sector, which he spent his whole life to almost create almost like a starter dough. And so I'm looking for some collaborators who might want to participate in conversations with this individual to start to use his access into this world as a way of kind of creating the beginnings of a story thread of where we are with our financial systems globally. So I just put that out there. And then if we do this right, we can move right toward uploading his mind into the cloud. Right, so yeah, come on little brain, don't be so slow. Hank, why don't you go ahead and check in while I am busy waiting for my brain to move around? There we go. I'll try to keep it short. For the past couple of weeks, I've been thinking about some of the same things as Matt and Jerry and Hamilton because I work with them and talk to them often. But on a more personal note, I've been thinking a lot about how social, how the pressures of life around us kind of like put our souls into tension and how that tension can be directed intentionally towards good things. What should those good things be? How do we direct that tension? How do we harness that tension and actually like truly participate? So I've really just been kind of trying to think about how do I like integrate the things that I'm doing into, you know, I don't really want to call it a goal because sometimes things can't just specifically be articulated as a goal, but maybe an aim, right? So that's fine. Love that, thank you. Kuri then Hari then Julian. Hola, so I'm down in Florida, born and raised in Miami and Kuri's my Cuban nickname. So Jerry knows me as Kuri, Jerry and I have been working together. He pulled me into this beautiful circus here. Jerry and I are actually engaged with a client right now. And what I do is work with organizations on strategic change, fundamental change, disruptive change. And usually don't succeed. Usually the models to refer back to Ken's idea there is the mental models and constructs are pretty hard wired. And we try a lot of different approaches to get them to bend their models a bit and see a larger future version of themselves. It doesn't always work, but it takes the form of me a lot of different type of gameplay, kumu maps as Gene was demonstrating of the day are good friends of mine. I use those a lot of variety of ways to hack mindsets in organizations and get them to see bigger, more impactful versions of themselves. And I tend to do that a lot around higher ed, academics, universities, libraries, publishers and I take the occasional corporate gig too. So that's me. Well, thank you. And I believe you can see the launches from Kennedy from your house, right? It's good. It's pretty cool. Yeah. Hari? Okay, guys. Hari from India here. So I'm here for the first time at this meeting. So I... Here? I've just been... Namaste. Hi. Hi. Thank you so much, Hari. Sorry? Where are you from? I couldn't hear you. I'm from India, from Bangalore in India in the south of India. Yeah. So thank you for inviting me to this thing. I would say it's very hard to describe myself except my identity is a work in progress. And the way I'm thinking about it now is there's a circle and it's called sustainability and everyone I meet, I look for the intersection and at least try and find something in common. One of my current topics of interest is sustainability in the information society. So I've been reading a lot about post-industrial societies and the evolution of that debate. Basically, from the perspective that how do you do decision-making in a society like that and what are the wider implications of a spillover of that kind of society to places which are not prepared for it. For example, the global south. So I'm reading a lot about those kinds of things and just following the, you know, like where it leads. So I'm looking forward to today the jam which we're going to have later on on systems mapping because I want to apply those techniques to problem solving in the domains of waste management and climate action contextualized to my situation. You just muted yourself. There we go. Yeah, basically to the context which I operate in right now. So that's my immediate exercise. And I'm sorry that this afternoon's call will be so late for you. I apologize. No worries, no worries, no worries. And also the rocks that you're turning over, there's just so much in them. So plenty to do and talk about here. Julie, thank you. Thank you, Julianne, Pete and Kevin Jones. Sorry, good morning. So my particular bent is to make knowledge as manageable as a glass of water. And another way to describe that would be if you think of minority report and Tom Cruise is out there waving his hands, something like that, except it's for real. And so this entails several areas, one of which is the immersive tech that's needed in order to visualize and manage whatever it is, being knowledge, how do you define knowledge which has a lot of background. And then the cognitive science that humans use to interact with reality needs to interact with whatever this other reality is, whatever you want to call it, all of these need to be combined. So everything I'm doing these days is focused on bringing all these different disciplines together in a way that it can be put onto a digital system. And thus people can define and manage their knowledge. Awesome, thank you. And like our president does have trouble managing water now and then, but that's a totally different issue. Pete and Kevin and Laura. Hi, I'm Peter Kinnsky. My passion kind of is helping people accomplish what they want to do. So tools and processes. I've got a tech background and a Silicon Valley background. So another thing I like to do is try to help level playing fields. Helping, for a long time, it's been helping people who are non-technical use technical tools, but that's kind of balanced out well. So I think maybe I need to look for other kinds of people who don't have access to the kinds of tools they should have. In the context of this group, one of the things that one of the story threads in my life is watching super organisms. I think it's really fascinating to me that people tend to think that they're individuals and if they were drawing a diagram of themselves, their individuality would be most of it. And then around the edges is the things that you participate in, your country or your schools or your tribes or churches. So for me, I feel like it's kind of the other way around. And we live as tiny little motes inside these big super organisms, churches or belief systems or countries or companies or whatever. And so what I see, if I look over the history of the past 1,000, 2,000 years or something like that is these super organisms that have people inside them. But the super organisms are really the thing, the cultural shifts and things like that are the things that have adaptation and evolution. So we had churches kind of get supplanted by cities and cities get supplanted by states. And now we've got states and corporations warring with each other. And people, individuals feel like they have a lot of control over agency in that situation. And they don't really. There's a little agency. So helping people band together to create intentional organisms and organisms that are more humane, I think it's something I'm really interested in. And the trick, one of the tricks I've kind of learned in thinking about this is that once you leave, once you get a system that's bigger than an individual or bigger than a couple individuals, once you have a city or some kind of lords who can have collective control over resources and work, then you've got a thing that's gotten bigger than one human can control it, right? Even the guy, usually a guy who's in charge of all the grain and all the slaves is kind of, he's not really in control as much as the human. He's kind of, he's not really in control as much as the system dynamics of all of that stuff and the system dynamics of his little fiefdom warring or cooperating with a neighboring fiefdom. So that's where, you know, for this group, that's where I'm interested in kind of poking around and learning. Thank you. And I'm no philosopher and no political scientist, but the political philosophy of what's going on is absolutely riveting, just riveting. And there's so many good works and ideas about what's going on. And we're in this really plastic brutal moment where so many things are possible to change that we could tip one way or the other. So I'm hoping we have a little to do with that as well. Kevin, then Lauren, then Scott. And I'll just before I even let Kevin have the mic, I'll say that he is the reason I am married to April right now that he was- And also yesterday too, right? Yeah, yeah. He was not setting us up, but he thought we had some ideas and comments we invited us both for coffee at the Ferry Building in San Francisco some years ago. And a week later, we showed up at his door with flowers. That's right, that's right. I've forgotten that part. So sorry, I just thought I'd refresh your memory. Go ahead. Well, you know, you know, one of my businesses has been about bringing people together, figuring out- Apparently you do that well. What's that? Apparently you do that well, sorry. Yeah, yeah. Sometimes it works, you know? We should probably check with April to see if we can get a current update. But anyway, I've been working on accelerating the flow of capital to good for about 20 years. And we just got invited in by a group of black churches around Allentown, Pennsylvania who wants a credit union. I just happened to be working with a credit union that wants to do a congregational-based micro-nodes. And they didn't get, you know, like the PPP loans, like other folks did, and the banks aren't working for them. And we think we'll have a replicable model of this thing, but we're going to go- Luckily, I mean, it's just kind of odd. I've been creating a proposal for a parish-based credit union that can be a replicable node. And then this group reached out to a friend and then talked to him and said, man, we really need the credit union. The bank's stuck for us. And so we're hopefully going to do something. So I do that kind of thing. Awesome, Kevin. Thank you. Lauren, then Scott. Okay, so last week we were discussing maybe setting up another call to do some practical collective intelligence. And I think I'm going to host a call then on Monday evening CET. That's European times. That's nine CET, which is three o'clock Eastern time and 12 o'clock Pacific time. So, yeah. So the idea is to talk about kind of social issues, but combine this kind of relevant social issues with all of these mapping tools and ideas. So I'm really looking for people who have theories that they want to test out and practice or just advice to give me and how to actually structure these. So I want to make kind of like something that's scalable where people come, we find some way of getting people into rooms together. That's a good way of matching people. Not entirely sure how to do that. And then have them produce something that's both fun to work on and kind of educational things that can be tweeted, fun things like we want to make puppet shows and stuff like that. So to make good graphics and basically kind of like a, dare I say it kind of like an advertising arm of actually making and producing interesting means. So the idea is to take a kind of hashtags that we get from these kind of various salon groups that are around that are kind of talking these things into existence and then make it into a thing and explain it and then kind of promote it and measure how effective we are at actually getting it willing that into existence and making it a real thing. So that's kind of the concept. I love anyone who wants to come and direct things and to help set up how we do it. It's basically a testing grounds for developing the open global mind model and to get real information and feedback. So that's a concept. You'll put it out. You'll sell it out to everybody. Sure. The Zoom info. Sure. Yeah. That sounds great. Please put it on the OGM list. That's exactly what I was going to say, Judy. Thank you. That sounds awesome. And we're doing check-ins right now but part of the reason I did story-threading on a previous call was I'm really interested in setting up story-threading as a business and I think I'm probably the OOR story-threader but there are other people on this call who'd be fabulous story-threaders who might want to try it out and it would be really nice if five years from now people who were looking for graphed facilities said, oh, and I'd like to also have a story-threader in our meeting because it's going to make the meeting better, right? And that can be, and story-threaders are the kinds of people who would be really ace meme generators. So Kevin, I'll send you a link or when somebody else is talking, I'll put a link here in the chat to the video for the OGM call about story-threading where we explain it and discuss it and five different people made comments that I hadn't realized were important parts of how to describe story-threading. So the call really enriched the idea and it was born from my frustration of going to events where people are drawing beautiful maps of what's being said on the wall on large sheets of paper and then I'd get a snapshot later of that sheet of paper and nobody refers back to it. It's not really an ongoing memory. If it's really good, it becomes an artifact during the conference and people point to the place in the wall where yesterday the recorder drew that really cool bridge with the concepts. But can we enrich recording, but can we also then riff on what's being said and done in the meeting so that the minority reports, going back there intentionally, Kulian, so that the minority reports that show up in the meeting, the little interesting sparks that usually get snuffed up by group process actually get some oxygen and maybe take off as means and maybe take off as initiatives that the people at the event didn't realize they needed to do because that person who said the crazy idea was just a little early, which happens with all good ideas. They're just a little too early so they sound completely kooky to the first people who hear them and how do we sort of go beyond that? So story-threading is meant to sort of harness that energy in that capacity. Lauren, I really love what you're proposing and it's sort of like dendritic growth of thought and ideology. So I'm excited to talk further about that. It's funny that you say that, Dary, because my thing is exactly for people with kooky ideas who have no place and would just like, people are just like, you're a weirdo or you're too much. This is the kooky idea homeless. They may have a physical structure over their head but their kooky idea has no home. We can find them a home. We can have like a kooky idea adoption shelter. Sounds reasonable to me. I've lost track of my cue because people are moving around on me here. Scott, I think you were next. Good morning, everyone. My video is not working because sometimes if I'm using various meeting things, one takes over and doesn't let go. So anyway, I'm new to this. I am much less accomplished. I know none of you would say that but I'm much less accomplished than all of you. But my feeling in all of this is that my role to play is bringing these topics to people who are not as well accomplished and interesting and deep in it as you all are. And what I think is fascinating is you guys are so smart and well connected and well read. And when I try to talk to other people, I find that they don't even know that this exists let alone have taken any depth in any of the subjects that you're really talking about. And one thing I have found is that our young people as they're getting out of school are able to follow directions really well and yet if they're presented with a chaotic system, they have no idea what to do, where to start, anything like that. And so what I'm interested in is collecting a set of what I would call metascales so that they can approach problems on their own. And I find these discussions fascinating because I'm able to glean simple approaches to system thinking or to idea mapping or to visual thinking or whatever it happens to be. And I hope to be able to bring those to kids so that they start out because I'm 54 and I started this journey maybe a decade ago, but most recently in the last couple of years and I just think, wow, what would have happened if I had been building my brain 30 years ago as someone I know might have been doing? So anyway, that's kind of my spiel. That's awesome Scott, thank you. Where's home for you? Home is interlocking Michigan. So it is up in the woods in the water. So, awesome. And now I have to cross the top of my Google gallery. So Jean, Peter and then Bentley. I'm Jean Bellinger and if you were here last week, so was I. I live on a sandbar on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. I'm here for two reasons. One because 20 some odd years ago, Jerry introduced me to the brain 1.0 at a conference and I was so captivated. I had to go back to my room and install it on my laptop during the first break. And it's been a love hate relationship ever since with the brain, not with Jerry. And I find the interface so seductive that I just, I get so upset from time to time that I actually deleted from my system and six months later it's back again. It's like a recurring disease. And this particular project is an effort on my part to get out more. Which is a very appropriate time to be getting out more. The coronavirus thing, lifestyle is the natural thing for me. Yeah, coronavirus lockdown is the way for me. Thank you. Peter? Yes, I'm calling from Belgium, from Flanders. I just came out of a call with Robert Poindome who wrote a book about pause, do pause and another one about do improv. And we were discussing about this and other things that have to do with how to have agency in a world that's constantly shifting under you. And he used a quote from Kierkegaard and I'm not sure that that's the exact quote but it was about, we comprehend backwards and we live forward. Hmm. So I think a lot of what we have been doing so far if we now look at the brain, at Jerry's brain, we comprehend backwards by noticing and seeing more of what Jerry has seen. And somewhere I'm trying to find how we can see or live forward and see and making more likely the future. That's already there in the sense of there are a lot of propensities that somebody can notice. So how can we notice propensities in the open global mind and give shape to the future that we desire. I like the word give shape in the sense that it's about imagination, but it's also shape like scaffold, which is helping shape the end form of something, of a building or whatever it is. And somewhere during that conversation, Robert consciously or unconsciously, he said, he spoke a sentence or a line that I like a lot, walking backwards into the future, elegantly take advantage of opportunities, elegantly take advantage of opportunities. So I think I'm in here, I think Jerry asked me here for some, I don't know if I'm going to say some possible skill that's emerging on my side for tread weaving, story-threading and what I'm doing in life. It's creating artistic interventions, provocations and interruptions or intervals of possibility. Hi, I'm Bentley Davis. I like building, I'm experimenting right now with building tools to increase mass agreement and playing around with making, opening Jerry's brain, making an open source. Although only if someone's gonna actually look at it, use it and we gotta make sure it's updatable. So it may not be doable, but I was able to export a lot of the data. So those are the kinds of things I'm playing with. I'm currently unemployed, but not underemployed. So I'm just looking for the best way I can contribute my skills and time to the world. Brilliant, thank you Bentley. And where's home? Dallas, Texas, Big D. Wow, Big D, little A, double LAS. That's right. Yeah, and so there have been over, I've been using the brain for 22 years and many people have approached me about the brain and data, but Bentley went and just started sort of messing with it and exported into webpages, basically with links on them, an interesting portion of the brain in a pretty easy way. And I had just been interacting with someone else who was having a lot of trouble with the brain because the brain's JSON is non-standard and a bunch of other stuff. And the other party was like pretty upset with the brain and not gonna touch it. And Bentley just went and poop, poop, poop, poop, poop, you know, ninja, poop, poop, poop, here we go. And so I think there's a small conversation to be had in this group, in this project called something like, I'm just gonna propose free Jerry's brain. And I wanna say that because I'm sitting here, I'm torn with the idea so far all the thoughts that are in my brain, I've put in personally over 22 years and I'm not using team brain, which is a version of the brain they have that might let me cooperate, but the method of cooperation in that doesn't really work. So how do I get out of the brain and into something else or how do I make my brain's data much more vastly more accessible and useful to everybody else? Cause I've been curating for a while. I have a hunch it's a little bit useful. And so Bentley, what you've done just by going and doing it is a fantastic leading edge of that. And I would love to do more around that and figure out how to do this. In particular, I have a vested interest in how do we do these experiments so that I can then continue curating the body that I've been working on, not lose like, you know, I don't mind super distribution. I'm toying, we've had a bit of the conversation of could we use a GitHub model, a fork and pull model with my brain data and I'm not sure that the brain is adapted to that or GitHub would necessarily work that way. But, and then there's plenty of chat that's happening in the chat around this. So I think this is a really interesting, juicy place for us to start experimenting. Go ahead. Well, that's all I had. So, but I'm excited about all that. There are a few limitations like I can't figure out a way to detect updates you've made. So I'd have to re-download the whole brain and I don't want to take down thebrain.com because that's a lot of data, Jerry. And it only really works with the way you've used it because I haven't put it in the features. A lot of people use the notes fields, but you don't. So it would really just be your brain for now. We could work on other things, but yeah, it's a good start. Yeah, thank you. And for example, it would be really interesting if the notes field in the brain instead were a Rome database or some other Yuri Lagos who's a part of this group has his own Rome-like thing that he's inventing and he runs really deep on Transclusion and Doug Engelbart and Ted Nelson and a whole bunch of those sorts of things. So in some sense, a piece of what we're doing also is realizing some of the visions of the visionaries from way back when that also like the Naughty Report that motivated a lot of us to be where we are. I mean, Ted Nelson's visions and Doug Engelbart's memex motivated generations of people already to go do information-y kind of things. Has anybody heard about the Zettel custom? Raise your hand if you've heard of Zettel custom. One, two, three, three, four of us, four of us. Yeah, Zettel is a little piece of paper. A custom is a box. So a Zettel custom is a box of slips of paper and this guy, Nicholas Luermann, I'll show him in my brain in a second, a while back, created an indexing system for himself out of paper, there were no computers available to him at the time and he created a method where he was coding the little indexes. So each box had a unique ID, which was part of the unique identifier for each card and then he proceeded to cross reference the cards because he had a coding mechanism that would allow him to create threads through the topics, through the card decks. And he used this, he was a prolific writer. He used this through the years to generate books and white papers and all that kind of stuff. And what's funny is there's a whole, if you Google Zettel custom, you'll find a bunch of people basically trying to replicate his thing, which to me seems like a silly idea because we're so much further with computer technology. Why would you wanna create an arcane coding system and emulate an index card? I'm like, man, why would you want to adopt the limitations of Zettel custom? And yet the ideas of Luermann on that are very much on the same plane as the Memex. In fact, much more practical than the Memex because the Memex was just a thought experiment on the part of Vannevar Bush way back when. So, Gene, you're muted. How do you see that varying from using types and tags in the brain? Well, what happens in people trying to emulate Zettel custom is that you wind up having arcane codes that become part of how the user has to interact with the system where I see that what the task that's being facilitated is a wonderful task and is necessary. And Rome kind of does that naturally. Why would you want to have a card with a code on it? And some users may want the card with a code on it and if OGM can be a platform that allows for that, fabulous, right? But for me, like when I see people trying to instantiate great ideas, one of the problems with Doug Engelbart toward the end of his life was that, and many of you probably know, Eric Eugene Kim, who's been a, who was sort of studying under Doug Engelbart and tried to help him recreate the original augmentation system online. But Engelbart, once he had arrived at his vision, didn't flex it at all and wouldn't change it at all and just wanted to re-instantiate the original vision. And I met a guy, Kirk Carlson, who was trying to fund him at SRI where Engelbart had a seat and it was just really a frustrating thing back and forth over and over. So we have Julianne then Ken. So I wanted to bring up the notion of a soup, which is, if you remember the Apple Newton, it didn't have files as we're accustomed to on a computer, it had a soup. And when you were trying to get information out, it would pull out the kinds of information that you were interested in at the moment that you asked for the information. So for example, somebody's address or somebody's birthday. And this follows the whole idea of the MVC paradigm that came out of Xerox PARC many, many years ago. And the idea is that, sure, you've got this collection of knowledge, your knowledge base, that's the model of your data, but then there are different ways of looking at it. And the IT world, when people talk about their databases, they're actually interacting with it through a view because for example, you call for help and that person's got their CRM system and they get a view, but their manager gets another view which has even more power. It's still the same data, it's just the way that you get to interact with it. So this was the basis for Apple creating the soup and this also is the basis for where I'm going because really when you think about it, a hierarchy is not a way of looking for, that a hierarchy like the files on your computer, that's a view of your files. It's not an organization, it's not really the way to organize data because you can easily find pieces of your data that don't work with a hierarchy. Really what's needed is to look at what is the person interested and what can you find out that is related to that interest and this is a very dynamic process. I'm going back to what I said a minute ago in my introduction, I'm interested in using cognitive science because for example, let's see, very often when you're talking to somebody, this is how you would indicate it, like that there, I'm interested in that there or that or this. And this is how all humans work is that if they use their cognitive abilities to emphasize what it is they're going for and imagine if this here meant to your system, that's what I'm interested in, it's that stuff there. And technology has actually reached the point where this not only is this sensed, but it's cheap to come up with the hardware to do that. And so when you talk about your information, it should not be just what you can get on a screen, but rather what you can do as a human to indicate this is my area of interest and finding stuff on this and by doing that, we're able to abstract whatever this knowledge is back to the way the humans work instead of forcing the human to come up with a mapping from how the humans work to what that particular piece of software can understand. Thank you, Kim and Judy. The arcane path, I think, think about it as a story. Human beings always take a very complex situation and make a simpler version of it to think about. And the paths through lots of data are really stories about how someone found their way through the data. The issue, no matter what system you come up with to organize lots of data is the organization in a very Kierkegaardian sense, immediately becomes your biggest problem. Because human beings also have extreme tunnel vision. It takes almost nothing to trigger it. And once it's triggered, you're completely blind to anything else in the problem space. So I've come to believe that, I mean, in thinking fast and slow, it says you cannot address your own blindness, but the person sitting next to you can. The only way out of all the knowledge problems is to fly with a co-pilot. To have some effective way of working as a team because you cannot, from a single point of view, overcome your mind's leverage. And there's a whole place we can go to from here, but the documentary hypernormalization by Adam Curtis talks about how we are currently in a nonlinear war. Nonlinear war involved disinformation and spin and malinformation and a bunch of other things. And part of our huge political problem right now and the global shift to the far right is this, is that it's so easy to trigger tunnel vision. And once we do that, our short-term memory goes away. Well, once we don't trust anything in the arena, we'll grab any narrative that we like or that our friends like so that we can remain part of our tribe because when everything else is melting, your tribe becomes even more important, et cetera, like there's layers and layers of juicy stuff that's active in the world right now that can just cry it open. So thank you for that, Judy. I just wanted to riff a little bit on the multi-dimensionality aspect because a lot of the creative energy that is engendered in any group is triggering various little ideas that go off in other directions. And so it's constantly morphing and that's in conflict with the attempt to organize. So in terms of how we would model this, it would be really great if we had the endless threading option of different directions because what we don't want is all of the convergence unless it's really a groundswell of the right idea. And part of what why story threaders are called story threaders is that there is a threading of nuggets of ideas that are in the world and what the story threaders doing is they're calling attention to a particular thread which is a narrative. And the narrative could be historic, it could be how did we get here, it could be prospective, it could be where, how do we get out of this mess? But it's their choice of narrative from among the many presented in the high-fay in the sort of mycelial network of ideas that is in fact sort of out there if you're looking, right? So I very much want to represent what you're saying. Go ahead. There's a piece of it that it's kind of like the dynamic tension between convergent and divergent ideas because as you're doing all of the ideation you're thinking divergently and if you can keep the crowd divergent then you get lots and lots of ideas and then you can maybe take a look at them and screen to the things that people have the most energy for that seem the most feasible or certain things like that. And I don't know how to convince, how to, I'm not a techie first of all. So I don't know how to capture that in a service process that works for people. But what I most love about Paul's is that constant dynamic flow between divergent and convergent people bring in a new idea and rip on that and then that takes us in another direction and it's just continual exciting evolution of thought. And I don't know how to capture that technologically. And just Kevin, I'll go to you in just a sec. And just to add a layer to this I'm a big proponent for memory and in particular collective memory. And our part of our problem is that we tend to think of life as a series of events. We'll have a meeting or a conference or a thing and in the conference we'll, a clever facilitator will take us into divergent thinking and then convergent thinking and then we'll have prototypes and then we'll like design thinking or whatever other kind of process you want. But life is ongoing, right? And same thing, I have the same problem with politics where once every four years we get to vote for one of two parties that usually sound remarkably similar, right? And aren't really exploring the space of governance and in between we're not thinking governance. Like that's kind of crazy because things are always ongoing things are getting rich, events are happening that like the news business is somehow separate from the election business except when it's covering elections. And if we were curating what we know ongoing we could feed off it all the time and then we need to figure out architecturally, mentally, metaphorically where are the places to go to get things done as Lauren took us early in the call. Like, okay, great, so we have a rich background we can feed it, we can pull from it but let's go, let's go pull this one out and make it a thing in the world, right? And how do we, I don't know, you know metaphorically are we separating, are we putting it back? How does that all kind of work? So Kevin and Matt. Yeah, thinking about things counter to this way of thinking recalls the time back in 2003 I was doing some investigative and undercover reporting with the Christian right that we're trying to keep the first of the gay Episcopal Bishop, openly gay Episcopal Bishop from being elected and there was a convention and I started looking at all the small things that they were opposing as opposed to the big things they had messaging around and there was this one little thing where they were trying to do a meeting between South Korean and North Korean people of the same denomination and when they oppose it it's why, you know, you really just kind of demonizing these other people and the woman said to me, yeah, they need to be demonized. And so I got into that with her and the thing was they needed to be demonized because she worked from an infection of basic metaphor that you were on a slippery slope and if you went that way you would be exposed and you could become like them. And so the counter thing they have is being militant and separatist and literal where possible where they just use some text as their wall but it was people who don't think like this often come from an infection metaphor and that was at the heart of where they were coming from and that was why they felt a need to restrict open thought. That's super interesting Kevin, thank you. And the idea that means are contagious is part of that part of that same conversation. This call is meant to be an hour long I will hang out after but I know Peter has to go and several of you may have to go, no worries it's recorded, we're gonna put it online and thank you for being here with that to Matt. Maybe just to connect a few dots I'm still curious about this idea of the super organism and how people are agents of the idea versus they are the agents that are creating the idea in that relationship. And I also have this sense of human beings our natural state is in extended families, tribes, larger groups of people, problem solving being not an individual sport but a collective thought sport and the tunnel vision comment that was brought up earlier about how we're naturally wired for tunnel vision and I think about us as like a herding animal or species where that the individual out front are defined leader has to have sort of that tunnel vision and the super organism and the meaning of that super organism is what defines their immediate actions and they are behaving along those in that pattern, right? Danger is on the left, we turn right food is on ahead so we go ahead and sort of this sense and that there's these bands there's the masses which follow the leader but then there are these bands that live sort of on the side up front which are the artists, the heretics the scientists that are drawing in and making are doing the sense making and therefore they're creating new meaning for that super organism and that new meaning then turns back into that tunnel vision able to act and react in that front position and so all of that being said I wonder about is this about changing a super organism from within through using the techniques of the artists and the heretics and the scientists and those people who are creating new meaning in real time or is this actually about establishing a new super organism one that doesn't fall into the natural traps of super organism behavior or a new super organism that operates completely different outside the realm of the paradigms that we exist in today and I think that's for me open global mind is a little bit about that new super organism and what it means so let me pause there I know that was a lot. So you just gave us a topic for the next hour basically if not the next couple of weeks because this is really rich. Let me go to Pete. I gotta go but I just want to say keep the play-doh keeps coming to mind. And you mean play-doh the philosopher not play-doh the molding clay. Yeah. Okay, see you next week. Thank you so much for being here. That was a great riff Matt and totally with you. One of the intuitions I have about human super organisms as we live with them today is that humans and our super organisms co-evolved over the past 500, 1,000 years, 1,500 years maybe to be a feudal where you do have one person in front with tunnel vision followed by a whole set of a whole flanks of people with tunnel vision. I don't think my intuition is that when we were more scattered, when humans were more scattered you probably had different kinds of super organisms ones that were very collaborative and problem solving and bounced ideas back and forth and what happened is the feudal model is super successful. So literally the feudal organisms went around and squashed and killed or assimilated all the other ones until we're left with the model that we've got now where most of the super organisms are these armored tanks basically that roll over anything in its path. And maybe, and they're also at a global scale. Yeah, and they get bigger and bigger and bigger. When they fail, they, yeah. So I think maybe we can still look around the world and find cultures or stories of cultures at this point where we collaborated differently, where we worked differently and where this dominant feudal organization squashed them. But so as well as looking forward I'm kind of inspired to look in the past or imagine what was happening 2003, 2005 years ago in different parts of the world. Before passing the mic to Ken, I just wanna say that telling these kinds of stories and answering these kinds of questions is sort of one of the missions of OGM. I would love to see multiple versions of this and multiple opinions manifest in ways that other people outside of this conversation can use, interact with and rich appropriate, modify, replicate, riff on, remix, et cetera. So Ken, then Ken. I think just as a metaphor, it might work better to think about these large things as machines than organisms. The organism metaphor has some stuff about it. But in particular, the feudal machine didn't last didn't last past about Henry the Eighth. The need for a more complex organization involving banks and different parts of society and whatever is probably what like the English Revolution is all about and Oliver Cromwell and, you know, Napoleon's mobilizing the entire country as an instrument of war. We have the organisms keep the machines, the social machines, which are probably all a variant of language, right? Human beings invented language because they were about to go literally extinct. And it's like the ERR machine, but our ideas about authoritative leadership really come from fairly late. And a lot of them come from the Napoleonic war period. And a lot of that, I mean, ship captains, Dutch ship captains running a ship was a cooperative effort, whatever. There are historical reasons why the machine got bent in authoritative ways, but, you know, anyway, I could go on, but the investigation of how the machines have evolved is very complicated and I find very interesting. It's totally fascinating and then multiple history courses worth. Kevin. Yeah, thinking about authority and empire, you know, the book against the grain is an interesting thing because grain is an annual and can be taxed really easily. A friend of mine wrote the book Lesser Beasts and the empires hated pigs because they could be providing food around the edge and you couldn't control them and constrain them. And he's looked at several different things like that. And you don't see empires where there are tubers. Like that's one reason that Hawaii didn't go quite to an empire is that you can't really tax them. You can't drive by and see them. I think, you know, grain and empire fit together, but lesser beasts are their ways to create lesser beast economies. You know, we're on the edges of the empire. They can be destabilizing. James Scott is brilliant. I've read several of his books. He also wrote three cheers for anarchy, no two cheers for anarchy and another one about basically how do you rebel or dissent? And he's, I think, still a professor in New York. So I'd love to invite him to some of our conversations or make him a guest or something like that. If anybody has a link to James Scott directly, let me know and we can invite. Where are we? And I wanna say that conversations like the one that just surged up, I wanna riff on these, I wanna manifest them, I wanna record them, I wanna experiment with, like this afternoon we're gonna take a whole bunch of different sort of mapping tools and mash them up against each other and just see what they do. It would be fun to tell these stories using many of these tools. It would be fun to figure out how this clicks into education. And, you know, in this age of Zoom University where, you know, Orange County and a bunch of others said, nope, we're actually gonna stay virtual. Thank you very much for not going in. We could do some things with education. We could invite some kids in. We could do a whole series of interesting things here around these topics while as ways of exploring the tools and improving, you know, what we're talking about. Judy. Well, it just struck me that what we're doing here that's so exciting is the multiplicity of ideas and what we're starting to do is form little groups to flesh those out. But again, because of the population of these calls, those are pretty multi-tasking, multi-dimensional discussions. And it would be fascinating to really riff on how to create an insurrection of that type of behavior in larger groups of humanity. So one of my secret hopes is that what we're doing here in the culture of OGM is contagious and can underthrow larger ways of doing things. Judith, I don't, can you say what you said again? I think I missed the point. Probably not, that's often what happens. What I love about this group is that every topic takes off instantly in 15 different directions because of the richness of all of the people. And I don't know how to potentiate that into action and continual riffing like that on all of these fascinating dimensions. With this particular group of people, it stays highly creative and really leads to integration and understanding that can potentiate action, but the ideation is faster than the possible action. So I don't know how to systemize this and I hate that word, but I don't know what the process is for converting the richness of this into ultimately large groups of individual clusters of social change agents, which is where I like to see this go. Yeah, no, and I think that this is where we, this idea of, we're talking at two levels. One is we're having an open global mind type conversation. Right? The other conversation is, what is the open global mind and how do we set it up so that it works? For, and this notion of this conversation is different than the service layer, which is the translation mechanism from what is the super organism that I hope we create called open global mind and the other super organisms that exist in the world, and the dominant super organism of capitalism and the current, right? Or the super organisms that are China, Russia, whatever you wanna call them, which are also adopting some of these other practices. And I think we have to, we have to first, maybe we first have to establish this as a super organism outside of the constructs and constraints of today's reality. And I don't, and solving that problem allows for the invitation of more people into this. And then we have to build those services. And so Jerry's talking about story-threading as a business. What are those services that can translate this conversation into real action? And this is where I go to, I'm working with a client right now trying to propose to them that they build a separate entity within their system that is not their normal strategy and planning office, but really is more of an open global mind that allows them to sense, sense, make and then ultimately connect in. And maybe that's the other place that we start is we have to sell into a system that is more contained, 40,000 person organization than the eight billion world and learn those translation techniques, right? I agree in part, but there's a piece that I kept thinking in the back of my brain, this is like a resistance movement. And I don't wanna define it as resistance, but perhaps the mental engagement of people in open thinking is something that can move a lot faster than the technology. It also means that it is absolutely without central control, which in a way is one of the issues. You know, I wanna be sure that global mind is not centrally controlled and just becomes a different system that I'm rebelling against personally. So we're now such a catalytic group of people and we're all over the world. And as this evolves, there will be more and more people cause they'll fill in and participate in the groups that are being engendered. And maybe that in itself is something we want to foster and encourage and take personal responsibility to kick off in several different organizations with whom we interface and just let human evolution occur. I don't know if that's a realistic proposal, but it's kind of where my mind is warping right now. I will add that it's probably unlikely we can interfere with human evolution happening, but we may be able to shape parts of it. People have been interfering with human evolution since the beginning. Exactly, exactly. They've been trying. Okay, thanks, Jerry. So this is my first time on a call and to be honest, I'm still progressing towards understanding the intent. I'm not exactly sure what storytelling is, but I am starting to understand. But something Judith said was super interesting because I actually had that in my own thought process like many times and it's funny to hear somebody else say it, which is, I think for the kinds of problems which we have, these are nexus problems many times. And so they need different structures to solve them. So those have different network structure. And just putting it in the frame of this conversation like the typical hierarchical feudal kind of structure I would not say it's a machine in the sense that somebody started and designed it like an engineer and then it got implemented in some process. For me, it's more of an emergent structure which comes out of something more fundamental and I'm below actually. And the question is what? And I've been thinking about this for some time and I can ask the question before money was invented, did the machine emerge? Or was it that money started creating hierarchies of dominance and submission and I have to follow orders and so on and so forth and therefore it emerged. And if we wanted different structures rather than sit and lay the bricks ourselves would we perhaps need to have a different understanding of what value means in a marketplace? And this actually ties into some of the other stuff I've been reading because when you start to actually value the true cost of things, you have to move away from a one-dimensional metric to like the higher dimensions and if we could somehow embed this in our discourse and narrative and so on and so forth then it might lead to different emergent structures. For example, I do a lot of pro bono work for NGOs, things like this, it gives me a reward. Love that, thank you. And I think that we have many different contexts and we have, I think one of the things that attracts, one of the things that motivated me to invite many of you here and maybe trickle through the invitation was that we all have rich imaginations and theories about how the world works and we've explored sometimes with tools, sometimes with conversations, how those things work. Ken and I have sat down over many a coffee, kicking around these things that I have learned a ton of asking them about command and tent versus command push sometime. Something like that. I'm munging it just sitting here talking. Matt, since you just shared the model, why don't you take the conversation for a sec? Yeah, and Hari, just to kind of give a sense of this thing, right? We live in a world that we analyze things, we make decisions and we execute on those things. I think money actually is, this is a very transactional model, right? It moves through different steps, it's linear, right? Money is a human concept that allows for transactions between different people in this sort of this value exchange. And I think what we're talking about is this idea of moving to a place where there's sort of this continuous sensing and drawing in of information, knowledge from all sources of both current experience as well as every experience that's ever had in human history and how do we draw on that information, this indigenous now and all that stuff, bringing into a place where instead of using a single lens or a paradigm or the ideas of a single super organism that we actually use all of the lenses and ideas and super organism kind of based ideologies as a way of collectively making sense. And then by making sense, we're creating new meaning amongst ourselves. And so if we are agents of change, the people that are on this call and all of us seem to be united in that we feel like we want to be agents of change that by changing meaning together and creating meaning together, that meaning naturally turns into the way in which we act upon the world. And if we draw people, more people into that sense making process. And so this to me is the ultimate change is super organism that exists today mostly dominated by the US consumeristic models, right? That have been ported out through our movies and culture and all that kind of stuff. We need to create a new reality that people then can move to so that they can create that new meaning and then they become these agents of change. They start to behave fundamentally differently than they did today. And so this is a little bit of a maybe a resistance movement is not the right thing because we're not resisting the future. I think we're doing what Peter Vance said, which is instead of just looking backwards and then moving forward, we're actually creating meaning in a forward direction. And therefore we're creating positive change in a forward direction. I know that's very theoretical but that's kind of what this is all about. I can understand what you're saying. It comes right back to the personal though because each of us are automatically starting to include this thinking and processing in every group with which we interface. And people grab on and it starts to grow organically. And so that's why I didn't like the word resistance but I love your models. So I hope those get posted into things and maybe you could share them in a way where we could play with them too. Let's go to Hari then Ken. Yeah, Matt, just something which I wanted to because it's like related to something I've just been reading today. So money we can think of as transactional but money is also has a deeper meaning as far as I can see, which is when a society makes decisions it computes cost benefits. For example, what is the cost of putting a nuclear power plant here versus the benefits? Usually these are translated into financial metrics. For example, even the way ecosystem services are evaluated and so on and so forth. So for me, money has a slightly deeper meaning and where I'm coming from is what you said about creating meanings and culture, at least I understand it as shared meaning. It's very interesting because I've been studying this tool or this technique called MCDA which is multi-criteria decision analysis or something like this. It basically unbundles that money parameter and it's very interesting because they say in order to make the right decisions you need contextualization and that contextualization needs the indigenous lens to social and political embeddings into that decision making framework. And this is part of being in an information society as well, we need to contextualize with people's viewpoints. I mean, just for our data. Yeah, and I might push back just a little bit on this idea of decision making, the analysis that goes behind it and then we make choices and then we execute because we've been, management theory has been trying to optimize each of these pieces for at least the last century, right? And the reality though is decision making is like you lay out a set of options and then you choose the best options based on the analysis which is something that you conduct which is a little bit of a monotonous and rigorous process that looks at things through the lenses of the decision maker itself. And what we're trying to say is we want to, at least in my mind destroy that system because that system believes that the human being and the individual in the system is the ultimate agent of choice, right? This goes back to, I think, Peter, some of the things that you're talking about which is we are not the super organism. We are subservient to it. And the question becomes how do we become the super organism so that decision making is not an individual act but it just becomes a collective navigation of what is and what might be and what will be, right? And that's the part that I can't get my head around what that actually looks like in practicality but my sense is that's where we need to get to and every system that we put in there that moves it back down to individual false agency creates friction in the ability of us emerging to what we're supposed to be which is harmonious with the system that we're living in which is the world, right? So I know that's a lot, again, sorry. I agree. So I'd just like to point out there are good historical examples across this whole field. The German army's general staff for one. You pick promising people out of your organization. You give them advanced training and you put them in command decisions and you support them making decisions. It works. It works really well. It's worked in the past. There are historical examples of societies that were much more integrated with their sort of super organism. You can look at somebody like the Hopi or something like that. And the individual does cause a lot of problems but I do believe the individual is a result of the sort of like evolutionary machine. It makes the world much more complicated, much more interesting things. So evolution seems to be interested in pushing the complexity boundary. So anyway, I just mostly wanted to say there are good historical examples about all the things we're talking about, about how societies drive change by having groups that can effectively think about their problems and just enough. Well, hold on. So I want to wrap this conversation at the half hour. I think 90 minutes is a long time for us to be doing this. So I want to close up pretty quickly. I want to preface what Ken said, which is too late because he already said it, but I want to preface what Ken said because anytime I talk about the German general staff or whatever, I always start by saying, the German army was not what you think it is. Cause I think everybody has in the back of their heads that this was the most hierarchical discipline, obey your superior kind of army there's ever been. And it turns out that Hitler inherits one of the smartest armies there's ever been that Hitler comes into, he doesn't assemble it, but it's been sort of cooking all this time since World War I. And the army is brilliant. And they're busy developing officers who are philosophers. These are really smart people whom they give a tremendous amount of autonomy in the field. And that method and the American army, just before World War I is among the stupidest there's ever been and among the most hierarchical. And if you do any kind of insurmountable ordination, you go straight to court, Marshall, and you're gonna have a really bad time of it. So that's the matchup kind of across the world. But I say all of that only as a preamble too. There are thousands and thousands of topics and issues and historical examples like what we just went into that are in our heads, that are in the world, that are stories that are hidden. We mentioned, I mentioned James Scott here and Kevin brought up against the grain also, which is this really interesting book because it makes you see grains differently, like how history happened. And my hope is that in our work together and in riffing on all these materials together, not that we achieve a grand unified theory that we can finally explain in four videos, but rather that little light bulbs keep going off in participants and that all of these little light bulbs help us snap little synapses together that are ideas internal to our heads, but that are also contacts across our networks and that we can understand each other better and that we can approach people who have very different sets of ideas from ours and begin to understand where those came from and at least empathize with them and possibly even mold our ideas to one another and adapt and understand better how to go there. And so that is an ongoing process and it'll happen forever, but when we enter these conversations that are kind of philosophical or political historical or political economical or whatever, part of me is like really excited because I love them. Part of me is worried because I think that a third of the people in the room have just rolled their eyes back and are like, oh, not this argument again. And I'm very interested in making this a place where we can all sort of learn, contribute, collaborate and let those light bulbs keep firing. Judy, did you want to jump in? Well, I was just going to say that to me what this is about is optimizing the generative creative process in as many different ways with as many different people as we can possibly engage because it'll take a life of its own. That's what happens if something is a good change people get behind it, they get a spark and then they change the direction because their spark leads to something else and that's just fine because it's all that sparking for the future that is enabled as long as you don't try to constrain it into the right course of action. And that's the, this is, I don't know how to say it any, I'm not saying it clearly, I can do. That was pretty good, Judy, I like it. Anybody else? Wrapping thoughts for this call and you don't have to save them in-wrap. Lauren. I think it would be really handy to co-create a map of what we are interested in so we can all kind of look and see what is collective intelligence and what are we into here? Like what are the tools we can all use to ensure we have even developed and what are the sub kind of areas and even those superpowers that we do, those weird random things that, I think Judy said like she's a connector, I don't remember, but I think that was what it is. But those little things there to actually put those on a map so that we can refer to that. I love that idea and I have a bunch of that stuff in my brain for myself and I think I could smash it up against everybody else immediately. Because for example, superpowers. Most people don't know what their own superpowers are. Like the real superpowers we take for granted and it takes someone else holding up a mirror and saying, oh no, no, no. You're like three sigmas off the mean on this thing right here that you think everybody does well, you actually have a super power there. And so it'd be fun to develop a little exercise, maybe an improv style exercise reveal superpowers and then a place to put them in our shared space. And right now we have these primitive little tools. I have our Google sites, websites, LinkedIn group, this Google group that's messing up a little bit because people are having frustrations with it. Zoom calls and the Zoom recordings that are on YouTube. Right now we've got like these messy little tinker toy parts that are quite primitive. How might we manifest the things that we're talking about here more richly in ways that are more easily accessible in ways that anybody could step in and go, oh, and get to that light bulb, get to that little firing of an aha that connects up again. So I'm hoping we do more of that. Other thoughts before we close this call on this general vein? Great call. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you so much, yeah. Nice meeting all you new folks. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for being here very much. And I learned, I like the hand sign too. Good, this is because I agree. I disagree, yeah. I kind of got it, yeah. Yeah, it's sort of self-explanatory. Yeah. Thanks, everybody. Bye-bye, bye-bye. See some of you who want. Have a great day. Sorry, the invite for the second one, maybe I'm not sure on the hold on for the systems mapping, right? Yes. I don't think I'm on that. I will make sure you, I will send you the invite and it's a different Zoom room. Right now we're in the collective next Zoom room because they have a transcript function, which I don't have. This afternoon at one o'clock is in my Zoom room, I'll make sure you have the invite up. I'm gonna replicate it and put it on the OGM list, which you are on, I believe, correct? Yeah, I'm on the list, I'm on the list. Great, so I'm gonna duplicate this. And Lauren, you'll send out the Zoom link for your discussion. Yes. Okay, bye-bye. Is there what? Is there an Otter link? No, we're not using Otter. So there's an Otter integration with Zoom that is part of the corporate account with Zoom, which Collective Next has implemented. Okay, because I'd like to be included on the Otter. What I'm doing is I'm copying the transcripts onto my emails back to the list so they're attached. So you can find them right away there. I believe Hank is curating them into a Dropbox account where all of our files are actually being collected up. So we need to make that accessible to everybody. Okay, perfect. Awesome, because it would be great to play with the transcripts of these calls. Totally agree. We'll get there. Thank you guys. Thank you, yeah. Bye. Have a great day, everybody. Bye-bye. You too.