 This is the sense-doing call for Monday, April 3rd, 2023. It's being repurposed, and this is the first sort of a new sequence, which we will explain now. And then we'll be off to do things. Pete has shared a link to a HackMD multiple-person editable document that has an agenda for this call, and we can sort of do note-taking together over there. If you're not familiar with HackMD, we can bring you up to speed, et cetera, et cetera. And let me start the transcript. Boop, boop, boop. I think you already did. Oh, I did not. Did you? No. Oh, somebody did. And I just did. Oh, thank you. I was just hunting for the menu item. It's there. Perfect. Hey, Stacy. Hello. Good timing. So we're just about to go into a little explanation. Pete, do you mind if I set the stage and then we can please riff away? So the sense-doing calls were kind of a natural and welcome reaction to gosh, we keep talking and talking about sense-making. We need to do some doing. So it's like, oh, let's do sense-doing. So then we had several calls where Pete, his wife Joanna, and several other people, including Bentley, were getting together to try to talk about, first the topic was, well, the broad topic was what would a healthy society do about a pandemic coming in? We narrowed that down to masking policies and politics. And then we shifted over to indoor air quality to sort of pick something. And our goal was to work through some logics and leave behind some artifacts that would be sense-done as opposed to talking about sense-making. Sorry about that. My brain and Joanne's name don't work for some reason. She's got a tricky spelling. I know. And that like, it farts my brain somehow. I've got to fix that. I will move the bits around or the neurons. I'll do a little like soldering, hot soldering tonight and rewire the neurons. And I'm probably, you know, telling too long a story about sense-doing, but one thing that was interesting that happened was that John Den came in who has a site called Policy Keys and he took the indoor air quality question and turned it into a Policy Keys quiz or challenge for people coming in. Policy Keys is a website that tries to take apart complex and sometimes contentious issues by choosing carefully a question that sort of takes the question out of the political dimension as much as possible. And then by showing 16 different things that are for and against the particular topic at hand. And that's pretty interesting. So we went through that and learned a bunch about that and about Policy Keys and then sort of bounced back out. And then at the same time, Pete answered my tiny tongue-in-cheek provocation saying, gosh, too bad there isn't so much to talk about for our OGM calls by saying, hey, why don't we like put on a show? And so that's turned into OGM topics slash whatever we end up calling it, which is one of our agenda items. And so we then thought, gosh, this project, if we take it seriously is going to eat some more time on our weeks, but it feels like it kind of sends doing because what we would like to create here is one or more book artifacts or things that are presenting as books but are actually more interesting behind the scenes. I'll explain that in a moment if there's interest in that. And so we've repurposed the sense doing calls over to this project, which needs a friendly new name, which is part of what we'll probably talk about now. Questions on that. And then I'll hand it over to Pete to add or fill in or correct anything he'd like. I think, so another name for this has been OGM topics, which was the name I used under the proposal. There's still a website called topics. OpenGlobalMind.com, but Jerry and I have copied that over to the OGM Wiki. Maybe we'll cover that a little bit more. I think, Jerry, since there are a lot of folks here, I think it might be good to kind of go around the room a little bit and talk about what we thought about, I guess, especially the OGM topics proposal. Since StringLab was an interesting and useful experience and it did actually, a lot of it did flow into the OGM topic idea, but it's also not something that folks are here familiar with, I think. Sounds great. Sounds great. And so do you just want to hear what people think they're here for? Because I think some people are here because something looked interesting and they just clicked in. If, yeah, if actually, if folks are here for a particular reason, I think that would be a good thing to hear. I don't think we have to hear from everybody now, but if it's like, I was interested in this call because if there's something interesting to hear, I think that's a good thing. Sounds awesome. If there's anything who would like to do so, please jump in and don't all pile into each other at the doorway. Sure, I'll jump in. So I was interested in this call because the OGM calls a bunch of really smart people with a bunch of great topics across varied areas, people with content knowledge, but also people with a humanistic perspective. And I thought that if something could be produced that archive's leading edge thinking in a lot of different areas, that would be a contribution, especially if it was something that was living, not something that was static. And I think we have the capacity to do that. My plate is very full. So I think of myself as some kind of oversight editorial, design creative role. You are, however, a multi-book author, highly experienced in that. So I think that's a huge asset. So thank you. Anybody else? Yeah, I'll go now. Hey, excuse me, thanks. Let me jump in for a second, Hank. To kind of slow us down a little bit, I wanted to kind of reflect back what I heard Stuart say. Yeah, great. And so he'd like to see, it's kind of like there's a big flowing river of OGM topics. And if we could archive some of that leading edge thinking and produce something, that would be a good idea. And then he's got interest, but kind of limited bandwidth or limited ability to contribute. So he sees himself in kind of an editorial role. I talked about a team editor team or something like that. And that's kind of similar to that. Thanks, Stuart. And thanks, Hank. Or was yours, Hank? Yeah, okay. Well, I was interested in this when it came up two weeks ago in the, it was two weeks ago, I guess, in the Thursday call. I was very enthusiastic about the idea then and I've grown more enthusiastic as the time has gone on. I follow a number of the conversation threads in the OGM listserv. And a lot of them are fascinating, but that's doing it all via the email listserv is destroying my brain. It's making me quadruple multitask on, oh, who said something now and what does it refer to? So I think the idea of getting one or more authors to put their ideas together in a kind of new era book, as you refer to it, Jerry, either on a topic, two or three authors or on a topic, one author depends on the topic and the people, it makes it a lot easier to follow the arguments to see, do I agree with this? Oh, what does this person say? Oh, yeah, that person doesn't agree, but do I follow what he or she is saying? In short, I think it's a much, well, I'll say it a different way. I think it's going to be an effective way to get OGM thinking further out into the world. And also within OGM, get people thinking much more focused in terms of what are the important subjects for me? What are the important themes? Do I have enough to contribute to a new book or do I think I know enough to start off on a new book? So I'll leave it at that for the moment. Thank you so much, Pete. I like the practice of reflecting a little bit from a little bit of a different viewpoint to keep us, and I guess I'm thinking slow, smooth as fast. We have a fairly diverse group, and Jerry and I have spent a lot of time talking, and we kind of got to get everybody up to speed and kind of thinking the same thing. And hopefully we can do that quickly and smoothly. Does somebody kind of want to reflect back what Hank said, or should I go again? Hank, what I heard you say was that you get a lot of churn and froth on the OGM list, say, and a lot of good stuff, but it's hard to keep track of that. So if we focus on one or two or three authors who are passionate about a particular subject and kind of get that hone down, it would help us get OGM thinking out into the world more and also would help us focus our thinking more. And let me kind of skip forward a little bit also into where Jerry had, Jerry kind of took this idea and ran, and I think it's a great thing, but he's kind of expanded, and this fits actually right into what Hank was just saying. Hi, Eva. My original thing was, why don't we just have one volume that kind of collects everything? And Jerry's like, why don't we have a whole bookshelf and do this book thing over and over and over? So I think that's a really good idea and it kind of focus a lot of our OGM thinking. And also, Jerry's idea when we met last week on this was I hope really soon we can just produce a first book, first short small book and turn the crank once around and out pops work product so that we actually like start producing quickly, unlike some of our other efforts. Thanks. Thanks, Pete. I think it's Doug now. Yeah, Doug Bill, Doug? Yeah, I like the idea of a book that points to a conversation. That's an invitation to a conversation. A book is not the end point. And what I'm looking for is new language about climate change and governance because the old language is not working. Democracy being a key one. Democracy fit a certain stage in society that we've gone from citizen to consumers to what? Digital people. And we don't have a vocabulary for who they are and how to communicate with them. So to me, it's a quest for what are the next memes that can actually affect the world? Thanks, Doug. Anybody want to reflect on it? I'll reflect just a tiny bit. Doug, just a couple of days ago from one of the too many newsletters I get, I tripped into post-liberal politics and post-liberalism with and without a hyphen which I had sort of heard about because I had a couple traces of it in my brain but really hadn't paid attention to. And it was sort of the idea that democracy is not really what we want. It's outdated and there's a whole bunch of people saying, well, we need something where the state really jumps in and takes over and creates, oh, let's just say a theocracy or something like that. Anyway, it's being used and misused in different ways but the debate over what do we mean democracy? What do we mean capitalism? All those things is really hot for me and I appreciate your wanting to figure out what are the new means, trends? For me, it's like, what are the new guidelines for civilization? Like I think that we're at a phase right now where we're rethinking how we exchange value, how we learn to trust each other, how we share knowledge, all those things are up for remixing right now. And my hope is that this tiny project is a place to sort of do some of that kind of stuff. So I may have expanded too much on your thought but it triggered a lot of good things for me. Mr. Anderson, I feel like I'm in the matrix of you when I say that. Me too. I'm gonna take a minute here just to, so the reason I got attracted to Pete's thing and this follow on is one because of the work we've been doing with the massive Wiki project, which I think has some serious links for the 21st century but I'm biased I still believe that. The other thing that just what was said by everyone so far, Hank and Doug and Peter and Jerry, I look at, I made some notes, so let me just not waste time. So I look at what we're doing but possibly could come out of this OGM topics work would be an OGM thinking Wiki. And I mean that because Pete has encouraged me and I went back and read some of the older Wiki philosophy work from Meatball Wiki and from Ward and Associates. And basically the difference between what I understand in a Wiki pages and say books, papers, blogs is that Wiki pages are in the now. They're in the now. It's like, oh, what's the original version? This is the Wiki page. That's the answer. How did it start? This is the Wiki page. And I think one of what we might be able to experiment as we try and find new ways to actually think and produce representations of what we're learning and would be to sort of test our own knowledges about well. There are books and there are papers are in this and there are blogs and they have versions and updates and it's like, yeah, I got all that. But so I was thinking maybe what we do could be more like a little bit of a Talmud where there's like interpretations on interpretations on interpretations. And the thing I think people in the decentralized web and in the hyper web and are trying to figure out how to make that representation available to, you know, models like us with a keyboard. I, it would be great to figure that out and maybe we can get a piece of that. So I look at this as being a really, I don't know in my dotage here, I'm into empiricism. Let's try this and, you know, just follow on by W. Let's try thinking, you know, differently. Like let's not use that word. Just, you know, so I'm really into open and I'm perfectly willing to, you know, try something and the result would be a train wreck because, you know, among friends who can all just, you know pick up the pieces and go someplace else and try something different. So I look at what, when you were talking about books, I would like to, and when Hank was talking about just too much multitasking in the email list, I feel the same thing. And, you know, now I just, I've never been a really, really fast reader, but now if I really want to make sense of what people are posting, you know, I'm talking real time. It's not just a few minutes, I have to spend time, which I'm willing to do, but, you know. So I would like to have a way where that's, I don't know if we could, I don't know. It's a little bit of an overload. I'd like to see if there's a way we can do something different about that. But maybe, and Hank mentioned about maybe finding an effective way to make OGM thinking out and available and maybe more focused. So my first free association was like, yay, forget the book, let's bring back the monograph. You know, keep it slow, keep it small, you know? Keep it under whatever, just pick a prime number, you know, 53 pages, thank you. And I want to say, maybe we possibly could do the experiment that Doug was talking about trying to find new language to talk about governance because we're right now in the middle of a conversation about how we're going to govern how we take this little project further. So maybe that's all, I just think there's a way here that we could try and invent and use some of the technology we have at hand to see if we can create something different, some different kind of linked way to represent what we know, what we have learned, how we share what we think about it but interpretations we're making on it. That's just that. Anyway, I'm really interested. Thanks, Bill. Anyone want to reflect, Pete, do you? Yeah, and I'll reflect and riff a little bit, I think, in kind of the style that you did. Thanks, Bill. Thanks, Bill, for the kind words about Massive Lucky. For those of us, maybe not too many of us, for those of us who might not know, a Talmud page ends up looking like there's a passage in the middle and then over the centuries it accumulates different rabbis' thoughts about that passage and what the other rabbis have written. So you end up with this kind of decorated page that's multiple pages all kind of like agglomerated together, it's a really beautiful and wonderful thing. It's a lot like a Wiki, actually, except there are hundreds of years going back into the past. One of the, I had a Wiki company in the early 2000s and I was co-product lead, my other co-product lead at Dean 11 is actually Jewish and so we got to talk a lot about that back in the day. It's super fun. I think I wanted to riff a little bit on what Bill said, kind of about Wiki as a conversation. I think it probably isn't, it's kind of a subtle thing and I don't think it's very obvious even when you look at a Wiki that has a long conversation kind of behind the content of it, but it's a real thing back in the early 2000s when I had my Wiki company, we had all of our internal work, even instead of email and instead of presentations and documents and stuff like that, everything was in the Wiki. And what I noticed over years was that the Wiki was kind of a slow conversation. So unlike a chat system or unlike even email threads, you could see a conversation slowly unfolding over the course of literally years. And I remember distinctly the experience of watching somebody write a long and frustrated page about some issue that was complex and hard to figure out and nobody knew how to move through that issue. And to see months later, somebody would kind of tie together maybe some other pages from the Wiki and then respond to that original page with a, hey, I think I've thought of something and I think together the group has thought about something and I think we can make a little progress on that. And it wouldn't resolve it, but it would move the ball significantly down the field. And a few more times of that over literally, again, years, you could see the issue just kind of dissolve and all of a sudden it was, how could we have not thought, how could we have been confused by that? It's so obvious now after we've got eight or 10 pages from months and grown into the whole Wiki with different references and things like that. And so it was a beautiful and wonderful thing to watch. And so I think a good Wiki does that. And I think it's not even easy to see it kind of, it's easy to see it kind of in the rear view mirror. It's not easy to see it while it's happening, but it's also a thing when you get a bunch of people working together on a Wiki and they kind of understand, it's actually reminds me a lot of the Zoom calls that we have, I know each of you really well and over the course of years, we've learned how to do this kind of dance in a Zoom box together. Wiki ends up in the same way, but it's got a more persistence and longer-term kind of thing going on. So I wanna echo and honor Bill's call for, I hope that we get something like that over the course of weeks and months and years. And I also kind of wanna acknowledge there's gonna be a tension between, hey, can we just produce something that's like a little book or something like that? And kind of can we evolve a culture where we have a long-term philosophical discussion that can span topics even though that we don't understand what the topics are yet or we can't solve problems yet, we can at least move towards them. So thanks, Bill. Anyone here to reflect on what Pete just said, if not, do with the floor's yours and feel free to pause a bit before you jump in. I think that we're saying a lot of interesting stuff here and it's worth putting a little bit of air between our jumping in. Yeah, so what I heard, I will reflect just a little bit. What I heard Pete say was that a wiki is a good vehicle because it is alive and there's an absolute beauty in creating Talmud-like pages because they're very much alive. So that's my reflection on what Pete said. And I just wanted to jump in very quickly and I said this when this topic was first brought up in the OGM calls, I think it's really important for us to create some kind of a broad vision, purpose statement before we get down into the weeds. We chunk it up big enough. I think it would be very, very useful to do and then we can fill in some details on almost like a project management piece in terms of how it all moves forward. Yeah. Adi, I think you're pausing for us but you took your hand down so it was a bit of a mixed signal but I'm waiting for your lead. Thank you. Thank you for the invitation. I ducked out of the queue. I might reappear in a few minutes. Please, please. Ah, I totally misinterpreted. Thank you for clearing that. You're good. It wasn't clear. Okay. So a couple of things and a couple of you've heard this before because this has been part of the conversation but to me the idea of a book is controversial and interesting. On the one hand, a book is a very well known artifact. The smartest people in our culture write books. Books are like the things that we think are culturally valuable and significant and good knowledge is supposed to go into books and yet then we wrap them with digital rights management. We make it hard to get the information out of the books. We over protect the info. Like what's up with that? If this is where the best ideas are and that's good for society, what the hell are we up to? So for me, the book is a souvenir of a snapshot in time of a thriving set of communities that are working on topics that are trying to improve what they know the way Pete described a moment ago over time so that if you bought the book in 1972 and then looked at the same page today you might discover that, oh my God, we changed our mind entirely about a bunch of different things and this page now flows differently into a book that would be a different artifact if you took a snapshot and printed it today. So also to me the book is like a gateway drug for people who aren't thinking wickily and cooperating in the ways we'd like them to. So we can give them a souvenir and early in the book it'll say, hey, thank you so much for buying the souvenir. The thing that you've just bought is available online mostly openly and is much more interesting online and alive and current. And so that's why this is just my own philosophy around what books are. But I think that creating a book is a handy way to reify and instantiate and turn into an artifact, something that we care about and do. I also know that there are many people inside of OGM's community and overlapping communities that have very strong feelings about a lot of topics whether it's climate disasters or soil fertility or water protection or regenerative ag or regenerative economy or what have you or trust and I would love if we could facilitate those folks expressing those things in some way and if we could do it in a collaborative way so that some of what they write is shareable into other people's texts so that some of what they publish was written by other people but fits in really elegantly because we figured out how to do that. This is the idea of sort of multiple books maybe going out at the same time. And that's why I think of this as a multi book, Neo book, some other kind of thing where again, the book is just a snapshot gateway drug and not as interesting as the artifacts that are actually interactive and online which is why the closer you get to the book being just a roll up of what was written online in my sense the better. So this fits really nicely in my own set of bigger projects, bigger goals that I've set for myself this year and I did this at the end of last year. So I've got write a Neo book is one of my pages there's not much on that page but the bigger goals thing is like, let's pretend that I have a year to live what would I like to sort of get done for the year? And this was one of my objectives already and then I'm kind of overloading Pete's idea but I apparently in a way that's simpatico for Pete and that excites me a great deal because I think that one of the things that we need to do right now is level up media. I did a YouTube short that basically says the web, the intertubes are stuck in mainstream media metaphors. We have magazine articles, we have movies, radio, TV column podcasts and screencasts and YouTube videos. We have phone calls that have video, that's kind of cool and we haven't really done anything that different. And so we need to rethink how we make and share information and what sort of artifacts it shows up in the world as, which is partly why I'm trying to think of this broadly because I don't want the book as a Kindle file format artifact or whatever to be the lead thing that we're doing here but rather a lovely byproduct that will attract new people into this community of people thinking and doing but that the other things that are living on Massive Wiki and in other places online are actually the interesting, are the meat of the subject and where good things are happening. So that's kind of the broader picture of why I'm excited about this and where I hope it goes. And I think that we've been chewing on this long and hard for a long time, talking lots and I'm excited to be at a place where we could have more artifacts sort of spill out of the process. And I'm trying to figure out how do we and train ourselves together into this wiki dance so that the artifacts we create fit nicely together that may be too big an ask. So I'm equally happy that the first thing we do is the simplest thing that could possibly work which might be a three chapter edited volume about a particular topic we happen to have in common where the three chapters are basically three long blog posts that three of us in the broader community write that assemble nicely into a book and then we figure out how to output that into EPUB format or something like that. And that would be like a quick, I think and noble win for this project. And I would love to see that just sort of at the start but I'm trying to figure out how to explain all this and make it handy so that, you know anybody bumping into this project whatever we end up calling it it has an easy time sort of absorbing why and what that is. That's what I got for now. And anybody who'd like to comment on that please feel free to step in. So I'm in the queue and the reason I raised my hand was to kind of go back and look at the agenda but I think we're still doing check-ins. So I'm going to drop my hand and raise it again. And Stacey maybe you should go. Yeah, I just want to say really quickly because I think that language is sometimes the last thing we consider because then we're considered to woke. However, in this case I think if we found another word for book it would be really helpful because I'm actually hearing channels. It feels more like creating channels of different information. And I just wanted to throw that out there doesn't have to be discussed now but at least that opens up us up to a conversation of what are we doing? It just, I think it's easier to visualize. Pause for a moment for the original invitation for the check-in and why we're here. I'm going to loop this into a little bit of what Jerry was sharing a moment ago and things that have been shared. I've heard shared throughout. When I clicked on the link to join this meeting it was because I am an amateur writer, amateur author and about 60,000 words into my first draft of my very first book. And as I've approached this meaningful milestone for myself I have been confronted with some of what Jerry was sharing around this like this uneasiness, right? Around this artifact being something that has been so creating this has been helped really important to me for a long time in my own journey. Now that I'm here, now that I'm doing it I am struck by the the limits of me trying to make a message or create a story and kind of immortalize it. I'm struck by how so often kind of is I think it was eats that mentioned earlier in the chat and forgive me it might have been someone else. It was Stuart, I create this thing I immortalize it and then no one reads it. And then I'm kind of in this like man, like trees get cut down and we can't get those back. And it feels like this I'm reaching into I want to be able to share and connect this message, this story with the greater collective story in a way that creates life I guess rather than I feel kills or takes away the life of the idea and also creates a static representation of the idea. And I think what I was struck by Jerry sharing in that it kind of felt like there's this invitation to transcend the way that we are collectively telling our stories and the individualistic way that we tell and share and create narratives and collective stories together and how do we find a way to create that more static or I'm sorry, the more dynamic expression of story and of idea. And I don't have answers to that and I'm very curious about what that might look like. I don't know what it is that I would be able to bring to this project. I think the I enjoy and like to think I'm skilled at editing and I also really feel called to share and bring into larger conversations topics around the power of language, how language shapes the experiences that we have collectively, how language might be limiting our collective experiences. Where is the new language? What does the new language sound like to help usher us into a time and an age where there's more room for collaboration rather than disempowerment. That's a piece of the story I'm interested in sharing. I also have a lot of interest in and excitement in exploring human proclivities to our tendency to perpetuate the cycles of pain that have been existing, emotional pain existing for generations and generations without knowing how do we collectively begin to explore breaking the cycle in a way that is mindful and empowering or the disempowering and continuing to perpetuate cycles of pain. I feel complete. Any comment on what Paddy just said, which I love? I think one of the ways of getting through the trauma and that pain is to tell the stories of the people who've suffered the trauma and the pain and to have others acknowledge that those stories are things that exist. And that's one thing we've been, we've been sweeping those stories under the rug for so long that when they bubble up, when they burst out onto the scene as they have in the last decade, the backlash is ferocious and we're just witnessing that right now. So I think there's a lot of current dynamics in the social sphere and political sphere that this would address in some sense and might actually, we might actually just be pouring kerosene on those fires but I'm thinking we might actually be putting balm on some of those wounds, which would be good too. And to reflect on what I heard Paddy say, I really liked the way she said that it would be nice to transcend the way that we've been telling stories and find new language and collective ways to tell stories together. And she also wants to be in conversation around the power of language and how language shapes experiences and how that might be collectively limiting our experiences. And maybe we can move past that. Thanks, Paddy. May I just say something? I couldn't quickly find the raise your hand button. Yeah, I really was taken by what you said, Paddy and also the way you said it, it's expressed beautifully resonated very much with me. As just before Pete said it in his reflection, I put a little note in the chat about exploring and finding and maybe even co-creating language seeming to be coming a golden thread in the conversation. And I would like to add my little bit of thread to that as well. It's something I do every day when I make notes to myself about what I read and what I hear and what I think about. I'm always finding it's not really the right words to express it. And I'm always trying to think, well, how can this be expressed in some way that other people who don't know me would experience the idea in the same way that I do. So thanks very much for adding that saying that, Paddy. Paddy, do you wanna go now? Yeah, thanks, Pete. I don't know if this is kosher for the way these conversations normally run and forgive me if I'm overstepping, but I guess I'm seeking help in that. I am kind of per this thread of investigating language and beginning to discover the threads of how language does inform empowerment and disempowerment in our society. I'm trying to conduct a series of interviews and interview people and have the ultimate goal would be language analysis of what is shared and finding ways to correlate it to levels of personal empowerment or disempowerment. Can you hear me? Okay, I'll take my earbud. So what I'm seeking is a connection to someone who can help me understand how to create a study that has integrity. I'm not in academia, I don't have connections to people who create studies like this and that would be of great value to me. If anyone has any leads on that, I'm gonna drop my email in the chat. Please connect with me if you have any leads around that because that's what I would like to do next is start conducting interviews and conducting data in a way that has integrity for the study I'm conducting. Thank you. Patty, perfect. Thanks, Patty. In quick answer to that, I think you wanna talk to our friend, Wendy Elford. She would be kind of perfect for that. And I think Evo, who was just on the call might actually also be useful. Evo would be perfect too. I'm so sorry. It's the first 10 seconds of whatever was just said. Can you repeat that please? That's okay. No worries. In quick reply to you, I think you wanna talk to our friend, Wendy Elford, who would be superb. She's academic. She has a practice actually. One of her several practices is conversational analysis in a pretty deep way. And then Evo too, who just was on the call and dropped. Wendy, this is actually a perfect kind of call for Wendy E. Wendy M actually would be a good person to talk to too. Wendy E is probably still in bed hopefully because it's super early right there in Kenborough. So I hope that in the way that we move this conversation now and we'll pick up Wendy E at some point too. Without closing off the idea of doing check-ins, if it's okay, I would like to kind of come back to the agenda that Jerry and I wrote up, not that it's a precious or amazing wonderful thing, but I think in these calls, one of the things that we wanna make sure that we do is move forward and make accomplishments. So I wanted to walk through the, I'm gonna try sharing my screen if that will work. One of the things I wanna say right up front is I kind of include this in my proposal document, but I think it's really important that we not, so we not get hooked up too much in the technology. There is gonna be a pretty, I don't know deep as the right word, but there's gonna be some reasonably significant uses of technology for this project just to make sure that we get things done. And I'm going to be one of the people that's kind of leading the charge to make sure that there's a technical backbone to this project, but also I don't want that to, I don't want that to lead, I want that to follow the conversation and follow people where they need to be. And so especially for writing, if you're writing on with long hand on paper or if you're using a typewriter or if you're using Microsoft or Google Docs or Obsidian or whatever, we got you. Write however you need to write with the people you need to write with and we'll make it work out. It will end up in a wiki. It'll end up on the website. It'll end up in eBooks and PDFs, but we don't have to start there. That's where the output goes more. The wiki is also where a conversation holds itself to some extent, but obviously conversations in the email threads or conversations on matter most or conversations somewhere else and Zoom chat and Zoom rooms, that's all wonderful stuff too. So it happens that one of the tools we use is this real-time text editor called HackMD. It's a little bit like Google Docs and it's a little bit not like Google Docs. For this one, we type over here in kind of this plain text and we use a few characters here and there to kind of make formatting happen. It looks like this over here when you're done with it. Some of the editors we use collapse these views into one and you can edit on something that looks like this. Some of them are separate. This one, depending on what kind of screen real estate you want, you can flip it back and forth between these ways. This view is actually really helpful. Judy has used this view to follow along as notes are created on our iPad on a second screen iPad. And that worked really well for her. So Jerry and I, I'm gonna skip this thing called editing some links for now because it's complicated. I tried to make it least complicated, but it is still kind of complicated. And then go to this section of the page. And I have a, I've come to a practice of just saying topics when I make these kinds of pages. So instead of agenda, here are the topics we might cover. It's not like an ordered list of the things we're going to march down while we're in the meeting. It's a lot more free form than that. And so when you see something like this and you get to edit one of these pages before a call feel free to add to the agenda. Feel free to make comments to something that's all in bounds and totally cool. Another thing that I do is this is kind of a table of contents for the page. And so I'll take these as headings and make these headings down here. So you see name of the project here as a thing in the list of stuff that we might talk about. Here's a header called name of this project. And I wrote a, this is a pretty common thing to do in a wiki to leave a little place. This, it's kind of like this page left intentionally blank but it actually means I want to make, I want to start the structure of this but I don't know what to go, what goes here yet. So I'm going to leave a little note that stuff goes here. And the reason I just to reflect a little bit more the reason I've added this was because I feel like it flows into what are we doing Stacey's question. And so I want to make sure that we captured Stacey's question someplace on this. So live right after she said that, I added what are we doing as kind of an agenda topic and also a section in the notes. We can take notes different ways and different people will do it differently. Some people do everything and kind of an outline on this page. I have more of a table of contents and heading section stuff. The most important thing is to make sure you capture stuff. It's not so important to make sure that it's organized yet. So let me kind of look at the this agenda thing. This usually you put a, you make a bullet by making a star or a dash in front of something. And then if you put square brackets with a space in between it like that, you get this nice checkbox thing. I'm going to say that we did check-ins and Jerry took us through some history. And I don't think that we've really talked about the rest of this, but Jerry and I wanted to make sure that we talked in this meeting or in this meeting in the next meeting about what we might call this project. I think Stacey's question, what are we doing is a really good one. It goes along with Stuart. What he said was that we need a project plan. I think you're covering the agenda of meeting notes management now. Ah, there you go. Is it covered? Can I check this off? I'm going to check it out. We're pretty close. It feels like success. I agree. Jerry and I and Bentley actually have talked a little bit about project management and Jerry and I decided to leave it off of the topics for now. There are a bunch of us who are super excited to jump into project management, but we don't need to go there yet. The thing that Jerry and I were really hoping that we would get done soon as we're getting rubber hitting the road is creating our first book, that couple of chapters that Jerry was talking about. I'm going to cover using the OJ and Wiki just a little bit, not very deep. Actually, let me re-share my screen a different way. And Pete and I also put up some first descriptive pages of the project, which you could point to as well, but we'll check out. Yeah, that's a good thing to... And this call is set to go to the top of the hour, so we have more than the next seven minutes. Yes. Thanks, Jerry. Jerry was saying, we started talking about first descriptive pages of the project. So this shared vision thing, similarly, is something that Stuart also talked about. I'm gonna go to the top of this editing links page. If you read this, it makes sense. In my experience, it's hard to read this kind of stuff, so don't feel bad if you don't read it. But if you get stuck, it's descriptive and helpful, even though it looks complicated. I'm going to click on... So the link that we're on, the three people who are here, are on, got here by clicking on this link, probably not here. Maybe it was in the email or maybe in Zoom chat. And then you come to a screen like this. Up here, it might say sign in. You don't have to sign in the way it's set up. It's a help that you could sign in, but you really don't need to, so don't worry about that. Just kind of ignore it. Play around with these buttons if you need to. I'm gonna click on this link now. And if you notice, this looks very much like this same page, except that if you were a web geek, you'd look up here and you'd go, huh, this is actually on a website. It's not on this editing thing, and I can't edit this. I can't even check these boxes. Huh, that's interesting. This is the web version of a wiki that Jerry and I and others have been working on for a couple of years. And it's a little sad to say it's been neglected, which is fine. It's still here and still built pretty solidly and we can come and use it whenever we want. And so it is that we kind of wanna start using it again. One of the things I wanted to note though was that, I guess, so this page is a snapshot of it from maybe last night or something like that. You can see that it doesn't have all the stuff on it as, and it's not editable. So we use this tool to make it editable in the moment. And then after the meeting, I'll lock this page and make that snapshot go up here. So let me click a crazy button here. You'll see that there's not much navigation help here. This is one of the ways that this wiki is a little neglected. You might think there's nothing here. It turns out an escape hatch kind of for a wiki is to click the all pages link. And then you've got way too much stuff, but at least you can start to kind of find stuff. I am going to do something else here that's described up here. If I really get lost, I can click the, click to the search page and go back to that tab. I'm gonna copy this. If I search for this, I wonder what happens. And there it is there. That's that page. If I really got lost, I could also search for, I don't know, something like that. So here's some of the pages that I set up. And this goes far back into the histories of OGM when we've gone in and out of using the OGM wiki. I believe some of those early documents are written on papyri. Exactly, yes, except we didn't even have papyrus, I think. What? Man. It wasn't actually reads. It was just grass or something like that. So let me, the reason I changed the way that I wanted to go to this view and go to this page. Here's the same page that we've been working on. And this is in another tool. This tool is called obsidian. And for those of us who have access to edit the wiki, this is the view that we have of the wiki, the thing that's on the website. So all the pages in here and everything on the website are the same, but in here, I have a little bit better navigation. Here's a old page called unsorted ideas. Pretty cool. Or literary and media references. One of the things that we love is connections. And so here's something we copied in from Wikipedia about all the connections episodes, largely probably so that we could search it someday. Or the diamond sutra. So if you're interested, I can tell you a lot more about this use, this editable wiki thing. Part of the background of this project that we're in right now is that we're going to need to kind of go through and organize all of the pages in here a little bit better. I wonder, yeah. This is another way of looking at all the pages that we have. Organize this a little bit and definitely make better navigation for it. So that, I think, makes me feel complete on using OGM wiki. And then I wanted to point us in the direction of shared vision and project plan and project roles. Project roles is already a page in the wiki. And I could show you how you get to it, but I won't if we need to, we can. This, I think the names of these have changed already. So these names are old, but I like the idea that Stuart, for instance, said, I'm not going to be a book champion, probably. I'm not going to be a chapter author. I'm interested in being on the editorial board. So that's kind of, once we have a kind of a panoply of things that we might be doing, I think it helps a lot to kind of figure out what we might be doing. So me personally, I might be a book champion or a chapter author. I'm also going to be somebody on the technical publishing team worries about how all the information flows from papyrus to typewriter to Google docs to wikis and obsidian and stuff like that. And further on to PDFs and kindles and whatever. And when Pete says the language here is obsolete, I think partly what he means is that the language here is the language of book publishing. And as we figure out what to name this project, we may sort of shift that language over to a different set of metaphors, which will give us a different set of titles for these roles. But the roles that abstract are probably the roles that we're interested in here. So the headings on the roles may change, but that's kind of so far how we envision the interactions going are probably gonna stay consistent. Jerry, while I've got this view up, do you wanna talk through the other first descriptive pages for the project? Sure. And the piece that I was thinking about short of these other pages that you put up as well, but was the Pete and I created a repo, a repository on GitHub for, sorry, we created a couple new folders in the OGM repo on GitHub. So Open Global Mind has a repository on GitHub where we've been putting a bunch of different things over time. Pete and I then went and created two new folders, OGM topics and OGM topics ops. The idea being that we wanna separate book projects from the process of making books or whatever metaphor we want besides books. And so as people collect together and maybe four people say, oh, we wanna do a book project that has this head, here's the title, here's roughly what it is and here are the collaborators. We would say, awesome, we've created a new folder for you over there. As you create new pages for this book-like thing, put them all in there so that we can sort of keep the books from, well, it's funny, so that we can keep the books from confusing each other, but at the same time we want to be reusing some of those chapters and so forth. So the folder can see it as partly to maintain some order, but the risk we run is that we don't reuse as many nuggets that we're writing as we might want to. But the idea was to keep operation stuff in the ops folder and authoring in the other folder. And then we may rename these folders away from OGN topics as we decide what this project name is. Then there's this notion of a design Bible. The word Bible isn't the happiest word for this thing, but that's a common term in different kinds of design where the design Bible for road runner cartoons is that the coyote always gets in trouble, nobody ever speaks. Physics is subverted for road runner who can sort of float and run back, everybody responds, et cetera, et cetera. So what's the design Bible for something so that we know that it is a part of our series of books that could be toned, it could be look and feel, it could be a bunch of other different sorts of things that might go in there. That's sort of the idea of what the design Bible could be. And then we clearly need a shared vision, so that's why we're having those conversations here and we'll need to spend more time on that so that we can have some agreement on what our mission and approach is as we go. And Stacey, you've had your hand up patiently for a long time. Yeah, and thank you for your comments about the book publishing terminology because that's totally understandable. And I just wanted to say one more time because it is a decision that probably needs to be made early on. The idea of changing it to something like channels, at least from a bigger picture, it's also a move towards relating back to our natural environment if we start looking at it that way because it's the water meaning of channels as well. And it might help us to start thinking in terms of flow, how fast something goes, how slow something goes. And you have to understand what's in front of you to know how to navigate it. So I just wanted to throw that out that there is a lot of things that don't necessarily come immediately to mind when you change the word to channels. So I just wanted to, and it doesn't have to, you go through the whole thing, but if somebody wanted to know what we were doing, we're navigating the channels or the OGM waterways. Thanks Stacey. And then kind of to have a little piece of that conversation now, the first thing that channels, first thing that channels made me think of was TV which felt old media. Second thing was water channels and rivers or streams. But then I have a whole narrative on stocks versus flows where I use water as the example. A river is a flow of water. A lake is a stock of water. And I think we're part of what our mission here is, is to turn the info flood, the channels of too much information into a stock of something more curated, more reliable and more thoughtful and layered over time. And the lake metaphor falls apart real quick right there because the lake is just a container of static water. But this notion of stocks doesn't fit channels all that well, but I've always done is open that conversation. So I think that we're, I think we have an interesting, a set of interesting conversations ahead for naming and metaphor shopping and all of that. So thank you. I could just add one more thing real quickly because what I actually like about it is that it evokes those two different things. And if we blend them into making it something different because we're looking to create something that we don't have to take the best of what works put them together, let's create something new. And so our governing metaphor, maybe one of water management and awkward for replenishment or watershed husbandry, which would be really pretty cool. So that's interesting. Thanks. Back to you in the booth, Pete. I'm gonna kill this screen share if that's okay. Let me, let's keep mindful of the screen share if we need to kind of look at it for shared focus, let's do that. And let's also remember that it's good to look at faces. I think the, I'm not exactly sure how to do it. And I wanna note that we've got 23 minutes, but maybe our next work, I think actually I like the idea of talking about the project name and the artifact name or the activity name is maybe a better way to say it. But I think the big thing is figuring out the shared vision, what we wanna do with this project and how to do it and something that makes sense to all of us. So I would propose that for the next 15 minutes or so, we kind of talk about that and then wrap for a few minutes with next steps. Is it okay to take what I presented earlier, which is sort of an expansion on the, let's just write a book thing and the different layers as a starting point for that and that anybody who would like to propose things sort of alter, change, substitute or critique that framework. It sounds good to me. I also want to, I haven't looked at Stuart's doc that Stuart has got the model I used to create a shared vision for a project. I think that's the full text of a book that he published. Is that correct, Stuart? Or is that you're muted? No, you're muted. There. There's one thing called the book of agreement. We've got 35 different agreements in it from all different contexts, but essentially I called these agreements for results. And what I posted was the essence of the 10 elements that go into a good agreement that you need to be talking about at the beginning of a project like this to get people on a shared to create a shared vision and a path to that vision. You know, it's a form of art, but it's a good start. It's got pieces of project management in it. It's got the roles that we play. I mean, I think it's pretty comprehensive and it's I've used it multiple times in many, many different contexts. Thanks, Stuart. Yeah, and it tends to, in discussing it, it tends to articulate and get us on the same page. And why is it that we're doing this? What's the value? I'm gonna push the stack. I wonder if that makes any sense to somebody who's not a coder. Pushing the stack is kind of like, you know, the plate dispenser is at a buffet. That's a stack of plates. You can take a plate off or you can put a couple of plates on as long as they're clean. So I wanna keep talking about shared vision. I'm reminded of another thing that I think is really important. And it's actually Stuart dropping in his dock here, which reminded me of it. One of the things I think in this project that we need to be really sensitive to, sensitive about, thoughtful about, sensitive and thoughtful is intellectual property. When things are, you know, when things are things that we share with each other that aren't supposed to go anywhere else, things that we share with each other that it's fine if this gets mixed up with everything else and I don't care how it gets attributed or whatever, you know, as long as it gets attributed to, you know, the community of OGM or something like that. I don't care, you know, what happens or this is coming in from public domain and so it has to stay public domain. This is something I'm giving to the world and I wanna make sure it continues to be public domain. The sharing licenses for the various books on bookshelves which may be public domain or creative commons or something else, that's gonna be, I feel like I don't even have the, I feel like if we were a soccer team on a soccer field, it's like, I kind of know that there's a ball or balls and I kind of know that there's these box things, these you kick towards and stuff like that but I don't know how we would describe the different kinds of subtleties between different kinds of IP arrangements and things like that. And it matters a lot because if this is successful we will be funneling a lot of information through it. And I think in general, we all kind of subscribe to the feel of generative commons but I feel also like we haven't talked through that a lot and it's, you know, there's a lot of subtleties to that that make a difference. And we live in a world where because of commercial concerns we have almost a toxic intellectual property ownership property rights regime. So we have to publish our stuff in a way that means something to us and it's meaningfully shared to us and it's also fits into the copyright regime such that we get what we want out of it and we don't, you know, we don't get what we want out of it. So we need to be, I feel like, you know I can kind of kick out a ball but that topic of intellectual property and rights and redistribution and who's feelings get hurt and what attribution means that, you know, six months from now or 12 months from now it would be super cool if as a soccer team we were able to like pass the ball back and forth, know where it was, you know get it into goals every time and stuff like that. I would like to see us try some topic as early as possible and see where we can go with it. I think that if we float a couple of different topics we'll have several people who'll be like, yeah, I could write a chapter on that. And then we just narrow it down to the one that is the hottest for the subset of people who show up and we're often off to the races. I'm equally interested in that. Stuart? Yeah. Pete, do you want to put that as an agenda item? I can do that too. Yes. Yeah, sorry, Stuart. Go ahead. Okay, no, I just wanted to comment on and appreciate Pete bringing up the whole milieu of IP. You know, I have a unique view of IP especially as someone trained as a lawyer. And I'm glad Pete mentioned the whole commercial thing that IP brings up. I would think that if this is going to be as progressive as we would like it to be that our IP thinking is extremely progressive. My thinking is, you know, Native Americans selling Manhattan for 26 bucks because it just, it didn't mean anything. And here we are combining ideas and jointly writing wikis and creating wikis. So that being said, I can also appreciate the idea of beyond the individual contributors, what's the stance that we take as a group. Yeah, I just wanted to kind of punctuate that. Thanks Stuart. And I'm looking forward to that conversation and I'd love for us to do some research to figure out who has figured this out well. And I unfortunately have come to the idea that you need IP protections that are kind of like a very friendly porcupine or puffer fish. Meaning your friendly as hell and anybody who makes friends with you doesn't get stuck because you don't puff and you don't raise your hackles. But the moment somebody tries to come in and assault you are unpalatable and the attacker will run away with spikes or will barf you back out because you didn't taste good or whatever. Or like a toad, most toads have like yucky stuff on their backs that predators don't like. So there's lots of toads around. But something like that. And I'm like, what does a toad like IP, what does a generous toad IP regime look like is kind of a question for me. Jared, do you kind of mean like, I'm a mild mannered guy, but hey, a neat this mild mannered guy is a Brooklyn born Jewish litigator. So you better not fuck with me. That's it. You're totally owning that. This is going to be an interesting topic to continue to discuss. I have a different take on it. I appreciate that take. My take is usually, or maybe a different way to say it. The license that I like the most is called Copy Heart and the wording of it is copying is an act of love. Please share this. And another kind of take on it is for a while I was trying out a do the right thing license. This was written by somebody who cares about it and I'm sharing it with you. Do the right thing with it. It's kind of the way I think of it. And another thing that I'm not, I think we get over stuck on, and it's a two way street, we get over stuck on attribution. And I think that's largely a couple of years, a couple hundred years of being trained within the copyright regime. It's like, oh my God, you know, I'm going to share this, but I have to have my name on it. I think for thousands of years, tens of thousands of years, I've been sharing back and forth and, you know, you learn that, hey, this is a story I first heard from, you know, great grandma, you know, whoever. But, you know, there was also the uncle who told it a different way and, you know, this is my telling of it. So I think it's important to, the reason I care about attribution at all is because if I find something that is really cool, I want to find more of it. But I also don't want attribution personally, I don't want attribution to be a thing that constricts the flow of information. And I think that we all share, I personally think that we all share community property of the ideas that we're working with, you know, even ideas that I've come up with, it's because I am standing on the shoulders of thousands and tens of thousands of other people who've thought other things and, you know, will think things and conversations I've had with folks over decades and, you know, so right in between Jerry's, where Jerry was standing on the edge of the pond and where I'm standing on the edge of the pond, there's a really interesting conversation just between those two positions along the edge. And I'm sure there are many more. So I look forward to kind of teasing all of that out and not having it with this down. As you stand on people's shoulders, are you oppressing them and squishing them? How does that? No, I'm in service to them reaching, you know, higher and they're in service to me holding me up. But the pyramid gets really heavy. It's a flattened diamond. Not if you're in the water. Not if you're in the water. So you just drown. Look at the Castelleras, which is a competition that happens every year in Spain. The human castle builders. Hank. Yeah, just briefly. I think listening to the last five minutes or so, that should certainly be a role on the editorial board or possibly of a book champion to make certain that everything that's being said is attributed. Whether it's your own or it's one of the thousand people who came before you or it's some specific persons. I used to give a lot of presentations where I said, I PR is one of the three most dangerous inventions of the 20th century. I PR being the first one. The Harvard MBA being the second one and nuclear bomb being the third one and that's the water I still see them in anyway. Other thoughts, Pete. Sorry. No, not at all. I was wondering if you had kind of a direction for visioning. I think the visioning is connected to the mission thing is connected to the shape of this project. And I wanted to go back and propose that anybody who'd like to amend replace substitute enhance the vision that I think I put in earlier, which was book is a souvenir is a gateway drug for people to come in. We want to make a simple book. We want to have overlapping books, but really the interesting work is happening on massive wiki sort of as we've chosen it now in a in a in a set of overlapping communities of practice who care about things that are busy sharing what they know, et cetera, et cetera, with further goals. I'm forgetting what else I said earlier, but in that general direction. And that may not be enough of a vision and I'm interested in what everybody wants to sort of add to it and improve it with Doug. You muted that they're muted. For those of us who have already published the book. We don't want to push the book, but we want to have it be in the conversation how to do that great story. So I was thinking of you and garden world politics Doug as we are formulating all of this and one possibility, one path is to basically look at the book and break it up into nuggets or less than chapters like like units of thinking that are coherent as holes and then choose a couple of those or all of them and drop them into the medium that we're talking about, which would be marked on files on GitHub volumes, which we can help you do if you don't want to edit that way and then crowd source. Okay, so what sequence would you put these in or would you reuse, you know, what you could do is pick three nuggets you really love from garden world and just drop those in and say who would like to pick these up and what narrative could be woven around them in that sense what we said earlier like what is the simplest book we could think of is three people volunteering chapters for an edited volume. One of your nuggets could be one of the chapters in the volume and so it's basically written, except for what the crowd does to offer edits and then how it gets woven together with other people's volunteered chapters together. Does that make sense. Well my gut reaction is there's just too many words this way. Nobody's going to read them all. So how about picking a couple of crisp nuggets probably makes a lot of sense. I agree. I think that volume is going to be a problem if we start like just dumping a whole, a whole lot of things into the pot. Yeah, I wish we had a culture of slightly more parsimonious use of language. Or we could just start chat GPT at our volumes and say summarize this boom, make a book out of it boom, by the by the by we're in an era where that is absolutely a possibility and a probability and we should sort of consider as we move forward what role GPT has in the work that we're doing, including to help us complete the task. So, Pete and Bill. I had a tiny epiphany. Actually, I think maybe it was when Doug raised his hand and reminded reminded I was reminded that Doug said, hey, we should pick a topic and see how far we get real fast. The epiphany was, oh my gosh, how do we know what we're doing if we don't have a shared vision is like, okay, well, we have to stop everything and like do vision work for, I guess, the next six weeks or something. I think actually we've probably done enough vision work in this call to make the next steps. And so the next steps would really be a and so I guess you know the little loops we all know our little loops plan do act or sense do acting or observe oriented decide act or whatever. I think I think vision and shared vision is going to be one of the things that we keep doing as we go around the circle and the circle gets bigger. And I want to say that I want to suggest that we've probably done enough for right now and now a doing phase would be superb. I also want to say Jerry, I think I really appreciate kind of you laid out a bit of a vision. I would love to see a homework assignment for you and maybe somebody else could be me to write that down as a kernel of the vision so that we can keep start doing the doing part. Even maybe next week. We have a transcript for this I can take the segment where I started to drop that into a file and go play with that, I think. And maybe as we close in the final minutes here, I wonder if there's other homework to do. I can't think of much offhand, but. And I'm, I'll ask sort of a third time, like, I am extremely interested in what's missing from what I described that would make it a vision for you. What's wrong with it that you would fix a replace. What am I forgetting or missing that's like sitting in front of it. And I'm like, well, why is this not a part of the vision? Because clearly we could do this, but that those elements I would love to put in the pot that they, I think that will enrich the vision a whole great deal. I agree. And I can't even really think of those questions until it's written down so that I can. The deal. Mr. Anderson. I think that when you start, you're muted. I think that when you start answering, you should like make sure that you're muted. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good little thing work. Nice. I'll catch it. Okay, I'm going to run over. But the thing is the other thing I think. That I really would like to see us do. Which builds on. Basically what many people have said, but Doug was talking about finding new languages. You want to talk about it. I mean, we've all kind of. In addition to putting together these so-called books. I've been reading Doug's book and many other books. I start to just. I read until a sentence captures my attention. Then I write it down. And I've been collecting those on my wiki. Just, you know, in places I don't put in a lot of context. I mean, I got the context. But sometimes I, but I don't put, so they're just these little rotations. But could there be a place on this wiki that we build that houses these artifacts. And I think that's a place for having this kind of interpreted conversation. Available. So that one could take one of these chapters that we work on and say, Hey, I read this thing and I stopped. You stopped me dead. Here's, you know, to just create yet another kind of. People start by wiki based kind of. Conversation about. These pieces, I think that would. It would be like, but can we start start using computers now? Or could we really, can we get down to it? We actually now use them. Mr. Lameen. Yeah. Quickly. I started having this vision of, you know, inviting people. We may start a chapter on some subject, but then the whole idea of inviting people who are really. Nationally or internationally known experts in a certain area to contribute comment in some way. It was kind of beautiful. And the other thought that I had is when, and this ties, I think to what you were pointing to Jerry, in terms of creating a shared vision, you know, it's not just one person's, but there's a way in which we can make it cumulative in terms of people participating so that it takes on more ballast, I think, in that way, you know, as opposed to trying to come up with or, you know, one statement of a shared vision. And there are people out there who are experts in many different sorts of fields. They come to mind right away who I would love a to invite into these conversations so we can sort of sense to what they, what they know and what they've got. And then like if we can be a contagion vector. For people to do more things this way. That would be fabulous. I mean, to me working wiggly is a known phrase and I think that I work sort of wiggly. But I think this is an extension of that. I think that builds on that notion of how to go about thinking and sharing what you know. And we might give it a name. I own the domain up keto.com on the idea that how do we work together to uplift everything that we touch. And that's what we're doing. We're using the energy that's present. It could be called up keto. I don't care. But, but, you know, I think we're, we're formulating it right now and we should do a little meta thinking about what to call the process and how to make it more contagious. Thank you. Totally like what Stuart was just saying, and I like the way you added to that Jerry. And since times about up, I just want to suggest. That we should do a kind of brainstorming with ourselves. About possible names and possible metaphors. And before we meet next week, put them all on the OGM wiki. For example, I've been calling this in my own head library, but when I heard the first Stacy and then Jerry talk about waterways, I got very excited about that. And so I think if we all think about possible metaphors that have power, we can also discuss them next week. Sounds awesome. We also have the matter most channel for this, these calls now called sense doing when we renamed ourselves really name the channel, but that's a really good place. Because not all of us are able to write. To get hub right now in Markdown. That's something that we're also going to figure out. So we'll be able to do that. But if we're going to be able to do that, we'll probably need to sit in on one of Pete's meet massive wiki calls or something like that. Pete. And bill what's how, how good are materials for DIYing your way to doing that? You should. You should work with me or bill. Okay. That's a good answer to the question I guess. And so, and we could probably invite one more to that. Yeah, Paul Roni needs to be able to do that as well. And he and I are trying to resuscitate the tools for thinking podcast as hyper talk, which I think folds very nicely on top of this or right next to it. Like, like what the notions of how to do hyper talk and how to make it an interesting artifact or these notions as well. And he needs to figure out how to come. He's just resuscitated his GitHub account and now needs to do the linking with obsidian. He's already using obsidian. Sorry for the side note. As always, I will post this video on YouTube and you know, curate the links. Any last words before you wrap this call. The name of this project is still since doing and OGM topics, both names kind of so you'll see both of those names happening. Neither one of them is permanent, but I'm sorry for the confusion in the interim. And the sooner we brainstorm a new and different name on the sooner that will that problem will be resolved. I think let's use the matter most channel to do that conversation for right now. That seems to be a really good place to just narrow down that conversation. If anybody doesn't have access to that channel, let us know and we will make sure that you're on it. Otherwise, let's be careful out there. Thank you very much. Yeah, really appreciate the call. Thank you.